| Metric | Bootstrap | Hugo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 46 | 69 | Hugo |
| Accessibility | 87 | 89 | Hugo |
| Best Practices | 87 | 95 | Hugo |
| SEO | 90 | 91 | Hugo |
| Security | 65 | 67 | Hugo |
| TTFB | 434ms | 238ms | Hugo |
| Composite | 74 | 77 | Hugo |
Hugo outperforms Bootstrap in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 74). Bootstrap leads in no categories.
Bootstrap doesn't clearly lead Hugo in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose Hugo when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 885 audited Bootstrap sites and 35 audited Hugo 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