Based on 1 and 59 real audits
| Metric | Angular Material | Astro | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 85 | 55 | Angular Material |
| Accessibility | 92 | 92 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 100 | 91 | Angular Material |
| SEO | 100 | 95 | Angular Material |
| Security | 87 | 68 | Angular Material |
| TTFB | 61ms | 304ms | Angular Material |
| Composite | 88 | 77 | Angular Material |
Angular Material outperforms Astro in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (88 vs 77). Astro leads in no categories.
Choose Angular Material when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Astro doesn't clearly lead Angular Material 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 1 audited Angular Material sites and 59 audited Astro 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