| Metric | Apple | Howler.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40 | 40 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 90 | 87 | Apple |
| Best Practices | 86 | 86 | Tie |
| SEO | 90 | 92 | Howler.js |
| Security | 68 | 66 | Apple |
| TTFB | 322ms | 435ms | Apple |
| Composite | 73 | 74 | Howler.js |
Apple outperforms Howler.js in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 74). Howler.js leads in SEO, composite score.
Choose Apple when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Howler.js when your primary concern is SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1337 audited Apple sites and 12 audited Howler.js 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 →
Send Feedback