Skip to content

Anubis vs HSTS

Based on 5 and 2556 real audits

View Anubis details | View HSTS details
MetricAnubisHSTSWinner
Performance6549Anubis
Accessibility8589HSTS
Best Practices8788HSTS
SEO8391HSTS
Security6770HSTS
TTFB283ms364msAnubis
Composite7475HSTS
Performance
Anubis
65
HSTS
49
Accessibility
Anubis
85
HSTS
89
Security
Anubis
67
HSTS
70
SEO
Anubis
83
HSTS
91
Composite
Anubis
74
HSTS
75

HSTS outperforms Anubis in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 74). Anubis leads in performance, TTFB.

When to choose Anubis

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

When to choose HSTS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 5 audited Anubis sites and 2556 audited HSTS 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, Anubis or HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Anubis sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (65 vs 49 on average).
Which has better security, Anubis or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Anubis or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (89 vs 85). 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, Anubis or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 83 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), Anubis or HSTS?
Anubis sites show lower Time to First Byte (283 ms vs 364 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 Anubis or HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Anubis scores higher on overall composite score while Anubis 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