Skip to content

Apple vs HSTS

Based on 1266 and 2487 real audits

View Apple details | View HSTS details
MetricAppleHSTSWinner
Performance3948HSTS
Accessibility9089Apple
Best Practices8688HSTS
SEO8991HSTS
Security6769HSTS
TTFB318ms354msApple
Composite7375HSTS
Performance
Apple
39
HSTS
48
Accessibility
Apple
90
HSTS
89
Security
Apple
67
HSTS
69
SEO
Apple
89
HSTS
91
Composite
Apple
73
HSTS
75

HSTS outperforms Apple in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Apple leads in accessibility, TTFB.

When to choose Apple

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.

When to choose HSTS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1266 audited Apple sites and 2487 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Apple or HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (48 vs 39 on average).
Which has better security, Apple or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Apple or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Apple (90 vs 89). 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, Apple or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 89 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), Apple or HSTS?
Apple sites show lower Time to First Byte (318 ms vs 354 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 Apple or HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HSTS scores higher on overall composite score while Apple 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