| Metric | Axeptio | core-js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 48 | 37 | Axeptio |
| Accessibility | 90 | 88 | Axeptio |
| Best Practices | 92 | 85 | Axeptio |
| SEO | 98 | 91 | Axeptio |
| Security | 66 | 66 | Tie |
| TTFB | 387ms | 424ms | Axeptio |
| Composite | 75 | 73 | Axeptio |
Axeptio outperforms core-js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). core-js leads in no categories.
Choose Axeptio when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
core-js doesn't clearly lead Axeptio 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 5 audited Axeptio sites and 1747 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