Skip to content

AMP vs jQuery

Based on 55 and 2134 real audits

View AMP details | View jQuery details
MetricAMPjQueryWinner
Performance4946AMP
Accessibility8486jQuery
Best Practices8787Tie
SEO9290AMP
Security6766AMP
TTFB658ms499msjQuery
Composite7474Tie
Performance
AMP
49
jQuery
46
Accessibility
AMP
84
jQuery
86
Security
AMP
67
jQuery
66
SEO
AMP
92
jQuery
90
Composite
AMP
74
jQuery
74

AMP outperforms jQuery in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). jQuery leads in accessibility, TTFB.

When to choose AMP

Choose AMP when your primary concern is performance and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose jQuery

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 55 audited AMP sites and 2134 audited jQuery 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, AMP or jQuery?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, AMP sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (49 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, AMP or jQuery?
AMP sites score higher on security analysis (67 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, AMP or jQuery?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor jQuery (86 vs 84). 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, AMP or jQuery?
AMP sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 90 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), AMP or jQuery?
jQuery sites show lower Time to First Byte (499 ms vs 658 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 AMP or jQuery for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. AMP scores higher on overall composite score while AMP 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