Skip to content

Akamai vs core-js

Based on 52 and 1599 real audits

View Akamai details | View core-js details
MetricAkamaicore-jsWinner
Performance3536core-js
Accessibility8888Tie
Best Practices8484Tie
SEO8791core-js
Security6365core-js
TTFB814ms379mscore-js
Composite7172core-js
Performance
Akamai
35
core-js
36
Accessibility
Akamai
88
core-js
88
Security
Akamai
63
core-js
65
SEO
Akamai
87
core-js
91
Composite
Akamai
71
core-js
72

core-js outperforms Akamai in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 71). Akamai leads in no categories.

When to choose Akamai

Akamai doesn't clearly lead core-js in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose core-js

Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 52 audited Akamai sites and 1599 audited core-js 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Akamai or core-js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, core-js sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (36 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, Akamai or core-js?
core-js sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 63 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Akamai or core-js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Akamai (88 vs 88). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, Akamai or core-js?
core-js sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 87 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), Akamai or core-js?
core-js sites show lower Time to First Byte (379 ms vs 814 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose Akamai or core-js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. core-js scores higher on overall composite score while Akamai may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback