| Metric | Axeptio | core-js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 54 | 36 | Axeptio |
| Accessibility | 92 | 88 | Axeptio |
| Best Practices | 91 | 84 | Axeptio |
| SEO | 98 | 91 | Axeptio |
| Security | 64 | 65 | core-js |
| TTFB | 410ms | 374ms | core-js |
| Composite | 73 | 72 | Axeptio |
Axeptio outperforms core-js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). core-js leads in security, TTFB.
Choose Axeptio when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 4 audited Axeptio sites and 1582 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