Skip to content

Apple vs PDF.js

Based on 1267 and 3 real audits

View Apple details | View PDF.js details
MetricApplePDF.jsWinner
Performance3920Apple
Accessibility9091PDF.js
Best Practices8678Apple
SEO8992PDF.js
Security6765Apple
TTFB318ms275msPDF.js
Composite7371Apple
Performance
Apple
39
PDF.js
20
Accessibility
Apple
90
PDF.js
91
Security
Apple
67
PDF.js
65
SEO
Apple
89
PDF.js
92
Composite
Apple
73
PDF.js
71

Apple outperforms PDF.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 71). PDF.js leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Apple

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

When to choose PDF.js

Choose PDF.js when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1267 audited Apple sites and 3 audited PDF.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 →

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 PDF.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Apple sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (39 vs 20 on average).
Which has better security, Apple or PDF.js?
Apple sites score higher on security analysis (67 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Apple or PDF.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor PDF.js (91 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 PDF.js?
PDF.js 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 PDF.js?
PDF.js sites show lower Time to First Byte (275 ms vs 318 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 PDF.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Apple 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