Skip to content

Apple vs HSTS

Based on 1336 and 3295 real audits

View Apple details | View HSTS details
MetricAppleHSTSWinner
Performance4052HSTS
Accessibility9090Tie
Best Practices8689HSTS
SEO9092HSTS
Security6873HSTS
TTFB322ms403msApple
Composite7378HSTS
Performance
Apple
40
HSTS
52
Accessibility
Apple
90
HSTS
90
Security
Apple
68
HSTS
73
SEO
Apple
90
HSTS
92
Composite
Apple
73
HSTS
78

HSTS outperforms Apple in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 73). Apple leads in TTFB.

When to choose Apple

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1336 audited Apple sites and 3295 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 (52 vs 40 on average).
Which has better security, Apple or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Apple or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Apple (90 vs 90). 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 (92 vs 90 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 (322 ms vs 403 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