Based on 9 and 24 real audits
| Metric | AT Internet Analyzer | Piano Analytics | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 52 | 44 | AT Internet Analyzer |
| Accessibility | 90 | 88 | AT Internet Analyzer |
| Best Practices | 95 | 91 | AT Internet Analyzer |
| SEO | 94 | 93 | AT Internet Analyzer |
| Security | 65 | 63 | AT Internet Analyzer |
| TTFB | 235ms | 291ms | AT Internet Analyzer |
| Composite | 76 | 72 | AT Internet Analyzer |
AT Internet Analyzer outperforms Piano Analytics in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 72). Piano Analytics leads in no categories.
Choose AT Internet Analyzer when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Piano Analytics doesn't clearly lead AT Internet Analyzer in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 9 audited AT Internet Analyzer sites and 24 audited Piano 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.
Send Feedback