Skip to content

cdnjs vs Culqi

Based on 373 and 1 real audits

View cdnjs details | View Culqi details
MetriccdnjsCulqiWinner
Performance4045Culqi
Accessibility8884cdnjs
Best Practices86100Culqi
SEO9092Culqi
Security6556cdnjs
TTFB367ms2204mscdnjs
Composite7368cdnjs
Performance
cdnjs
40
Culqi
45
Accessibility
cdnjs
88
Culqi
84
Security
cdnjs
65
Culqi
56
SEO
cdnjs
90
Culqi
92
Composite
cdnjs
73
Culqi
68

cdnjs outperforms Culqi in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 68). Culqi leads in performance, best practices, SEO.

When to choose cdnjs

Choose cdnjs when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Culqi

Choose Culqi when your primary concern is best practices and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 373 audited cdnjs sites and 1 audited Culqi 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, cdnjs or Culqi?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Culqi sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 40 on average).
Which has better security, cdnjs or Culqi?
cdnjs sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 56 on average).
Which has better accessibility, cdnjs or Culqi?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor cdnjs (88 vs 84). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, cdnjs or Culqi?
Culqi sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 90 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), cdnjs or Culqi?
cdnjs sites show lower Time to First Byte (367 ms vs 2204 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose cdnjs or Culqi for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Culqi scores higher on overall composite score while cdnjs may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback