Based on 65 and 182 real audits
| Metric | Backbone.js | Underscore.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 38 | 38 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 86 | 87 | Underscore.js |
| Best Practices | 84 | 83 | Backbone.js |
| SEO | 89 | 90 | Underscore.js |
| Security | 66 | 65 | Backbone.js |
| TTFB | 491ms | 408ms | Underscore.js |
| Composite | 72 | 72 | Tie |
Underscore.js outperforms Backbone.js in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 72). Backbone.js leads in best practices, security.
Choose Backbone.js when your primary concern is best practices and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Underscore.js when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 65 audited Backbone.js sites and 182 audited Underscore.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 →
Send Feedback