| Metric | Alpine.js | Htmx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 63 | 88 | Htmx |
| Accessibility | 93 | 95 | Htmx |
| Best Practices | 85 | 85 | Tie |
| SEO | 95 | 99 | Htmx |
| Security | 76 | 85 | Htmx |
| TTFB | 405ms | 607ms | Alpine.js |
| Composite | 80 | 87 | Htmx |
Htmx outperforms Alpine.js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (87 vs 80). Alpine.js leads in TTFB.
Choose Alpine.js when your primary concern is server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Htmx when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 152 audited Alpine.js sites and 82 audited Htmx 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 →
Send Feedback