Skip to content

Astro vs HTTP/3

Based on 72 and 2227 real audits

View Astro details | View HTTP/3 details
MetricAstroHTTP/3Winner
Performance5857Astro
Accessibility9290Astro
Best Practices9390Astro
SEO9592Astro
Security7174HTTP/3
TTFB308ms401msAstro
Composite7879HTTP/3
Performance
Astro
58
HTTP/3
57
Accessibility
Astro
92
HTTP/3
90
Security
Astro
71
HTTP/3
74
SEO
Astro
95
HTTP/3
92
Composite
Astro
78
HTTP/3
79

Astro outperforms HTTP/3 in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 79). HTTP/3 leads in security, composite score.

When to choose Astro

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

When to choose HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 when your primary concern is security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 72 audited Astro sites and 2227 audited HTTP/3 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Astro or HTTP/3?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Astro sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (58 vs 57 on average).
Which has better security, Astro or HTTP/3?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on security analysis (74 vs 71 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Astro or HTTP/3?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Astro (92 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, Astro or HTTP/3?
Astro sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (95 vs 92 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), Astro or HTTP/3?
Astro sites show lower Time to First Byte (308 ms vs 401 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 Astro or HTTP/3 for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Astro scores higher on overall composite score while Astro 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