Based on 432 and 2 real audits
| Metric | Apache HTTP Server | mod_wsgi | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 49 | 73 | mod_wsgi |
| Accessibility | 87 | 89 | mod_wsgi |
| Best Practices | 88 | 98 | mod_wsgi |
| SEO | 90 | 91 | mod_wsgi |
| Security | 64 | 66 | mod_wsgi |
| TTFB | 547ms | 211ms | mod_wsgi |
| Composite | 72 | 75 | mod_wsgi |
mod_wsgi outperforms Apache HTTP Server in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 72). Apache HTTP Server leads in no categories.
Apache HTTP Server doesn't clearly lead mod_wsgi in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose mod_wsgi 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 432 audited Apache HTTP Server sites and 2 audited mod_wsgi 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