Skip to content

Asciinema vs Fathom Analytics

Based on 3 and 15 real audits

View Asciinema details | View Fathom Analytics details
MetricAsciinemaFathom AnalyticsWinner
Performance7761Asciinema
Accessibility8788Fathom Analytics
Best Practices9894Asciinema
SEO8697Fathom Analytics
Security6562Asciinema
TTFB348ms247msFathom Analytics
Composite7876Asciinema
Performance
Asciinema
77
Fathom Analytics
61
Accessibility
Asciinema
87
Fathom Analytics
88
Security
Asciinema
65
Fathom Analytics
62
SEO
Asciinema
86
Fathom Analytics
97
Composite
Asciinema
78
Fathom Analytics
76

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

Choose Fathom Analytics 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 15 audited Fathom Analytics 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 Analytics?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Asciinema sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (77 vs 61 on average).
Which has better security, Asciinema or Fathom Analytics?
Asciinema sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 62 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Asciinema or Fathom Analytics?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Fathom Analytics (88 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 Analytics?
Fathom Analytics 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 Analytics?
Fathom Analytics sites show lower Time to First Byte (247 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 Analytics 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