| Metric | CanvasJS | core-js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 55 | 36 | CanvasJS |
| Accessibility | 92 | 88 | CanvasJS |
| Best Practices | 96 | 84 | CanvasJS |
| SEO | 100 | 91 | CanvasJS |
| Security | 63 | 65 | core-js |
| TTFB | 116ms | 379ms | CanvasJS |
| Composite | 74 | 72 | CanvasJS |
CanvasJS outperforms core-js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). core-js leads in security.
Choose CanvasJS when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1 audited CanvasJS sites and 1600 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