| Metric | Ant Design | React | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 33 | 38 | React |
| Accessibility | 81 | 89 | React |
| Best Practices | 82 | 87 | React |
| SEO | 86 | 93 | React |
| Security | 61 | 67 | React |
| TTFB | 357ms | 332ms | React |
| Composite | 68 | 74 | React |
React outperforms Ant Design in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 68). Ant Design leads in no categories.
Ant Design doesn't clearly lead React in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose React when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 4 audited Ant Design sites and 1021 audited React 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