| Metric | Bootstrap | Chart.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 47 | 41 | Bootstrap |
| Accessibility | 87 | 87 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 88 | 90 | Chart.js |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 67 | 66 | Bootstrap |
| TTFB | 456ms | 477ms | Bootstrap |
| Composite | 75 | 73 | Bootstrap |
Bootstrap outperforms Chart.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Chart.js leads in best practices.
Choose Bootstrap when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Chart.js when your primary concern is best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1038 audited Bootstrap sites and 29 audited Chart.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