Based on 419 and 2 real audits
| Metric | Amazon CloudFront | lighttpd | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 39 | 63 | lighttpd |
| Accessibility | 88 | 78 | Amazon CloudFront |
| Best Practices | 87 | 100 | lighttpd |
| SEO | 91 | 96 | lighttpd |
| Security | 66 | 71 | lighttpd |
| TTFB | 240ms | 77ms | lighttpd |
| Composite | 72 | 76 | lighttpd |
lighttpd outperforms Amazon CloudFront in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 72). Amazon CloudFront leads in accessibility.
Choose Amazon CloudFront when your primary concern is accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose lighttpd when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 419 audited Amazon CloudFront sites and 2 audited lighttpd 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