| Metric | Canyon | cdnjs | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 35 | 42 | cdnjs |
| Accessibility | 97 | 87 | Canyon |
| Best Practices | 84 | 86 | cdnjs |
| SEO | 92 | 91 | Canyon |
| Security | 66 | 67 | cdnjs |
| TTFB | 62ms | 377ms | Canyon |
| Composite | 74 | 74 | Tie |
Canyon and cdnjs are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Canyon has a composite score of 74 while cdnjs scores 74.
Choose Canyon when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose cdnjs when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited Canyon sites and 411 audited cdnjs 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