Based on 127 and 1 real audits
| Metric | Akamai mPulse | AudioEye | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 34 | 24 | Akamai mPulse |
| Accessibility | 89 | 87 | Akamai mPulse |
| Best Practices | 82 | 73 | Akamai mPulse |
| SEO | 89 | 85 | Akamai mPulse |
| Security | 64 | 60 | Akamai mPulse |
| TTFB | 452ms | 905ms | Akamai mPulse |
| Composite | 71 | 68 | Akamai mPulse |
Akamai mPulse outperforms AudioEye in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (71 vs 68). AudioEye leads in no categories.
Choose Akamai mPulse when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
AudioEye doesn't clearly lead Akamai mPulse in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 127 audited Akamai mPulse sites and 1 audited AudioEye sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →
Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.
Send Feedback