Skip to content

Apple vs Material Design Lite

Based on 1276 and 1 real audits

View Apple details | View Material Design Lite details
MetricAppleMaterial Design LiteWinner
Performance3940Material Design Lite
Accessibility9061Apple
Best Practices8677Apple
SEO8992Material Design Lite
Security6774Material Design Lite
TTFB317ms544msApple
Composite7371Apple
Performance
Apple
39
Material Design Lite
40
Accessibility
Apple
90
Material Design Lite
61
Security
Apple
67
Material Design Lite
74
SEO
Apple
89
Material Design Lite
92
Composite
Apple
73
Material Design Lite
71

Apple outperforms Material Design Lite in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 71). Material Design Lite leads in performance, SEO, security.

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 Material Design Lite

Choose Material Design Lite when your primary concern is security and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1276 audited Apple sites and 1 audited Material Design Lite 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, Apple or Material Design Lite?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Material Design Lite sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (40 vs 39 on average).
Which has better security, Apple or Material Design Lite?
Material Design Lite sites score higher on security analysis (74 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Apple or Material Design Lite?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Apple (90 vs 61). 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 Material Design Lite?
Material Design Lite sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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 Material Design Lite?
Apple sites show lower Time to First Byte (317 ms vs 544 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 Material Design Lite for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Material Design Lite 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