| Metric | Aruba.it | core-js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 66 | 36 | Aruba.it |
| Accessibility | 87 | 88 | core-js |
| Best Practices | 92 | 84 | Aruba.it |
| SEO | 92 | 91 | Aruba.it |
| Security | 77 | 65 | Aruba.it |
| TTFB | 156ms | 371ms | Aruba.it |
| Composite | 79 | 72 | Aruba.it |
Aruba.it outperforms core-js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (79 vs 72). core-js leads in accessibility.
Choose Aruba.it when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1 audited Aruba.it sites and 1570 audited core-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.
Send Feedback