Based on 1 and 3 real audits
| Metric | Campaign Monitor | ElasticPress | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 51 | 49 | Campaign Monitor |
| Accessibility | 89 | 89 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 77 | 82 | ElasticPress |
| SEO | 100 | 94 | Campaign Monitor |
| Security | 64 | 63 | Campaign Monitor |
| TTFB | 994ms | 373ms | ElasticPress |
| Composite | 74 | 74 | Tie |
Campaign Monitor outperforms ElasticPress in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). ElasticPress leads in best practices, TTFB.
Choose Campaign Monitor when your primary concern is SEO and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose ElasticPress when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1 audited Campaign Monitor sites and 3 audited ElasticPress 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