Skip to content

Asciinema vs Fathom

Based on 3 and 17 real audits

View Asciinema details | View Fathom details
MetricAsciinemaFathomWinner
Performance7758Asciinema
Accessibility8790Fathom
Best Practices9892Asciinema
SEO8697Fathom
Security6562Asciinema
TTFB348ms317msFathom
Composite7876Asciinema
Performance
Asciinema
77
Fathom
58
Accessibility
Asciinema
87
Fathom
90
Security
Asciinema
65
Fathom
62
SEO
Asciinema
86
Fathom
97
Composite
Asciinema
78
Fathom
76

Asciinema outperforms Fathom in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 76). Fathom leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Asciinema

Choose Asciinema 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 Fathom

Choose Fathom 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 3 audited Asciinema sites and 17 audited Fathom 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, Asciinema or Fathom?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Asciinema sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (77 vs 58 on average).
Which has better security, Asciinema or Fathom?
Asciinema sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 62 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Asciinema or Fathom?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Fathom (90 vs 87). 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, Asciinema or Fathom?
Fathom sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (97 vs 86 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), Asciinema or Fathom?
Fathom sites show lower Time to First Byte (317 ms vs 348 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 Asciinema or Fathom for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Asciinema scores higher on overall composite score while Asciinema 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