| Metric | cdnjs | mod_python | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40 | 30 | cdnjs |
| Accessibility | 88 | 95 | mod_python |
| Best Practices | 86 | 77 | cdnjs |
| SEO | 90 | 100 | mod_python |
| Security | 65 | 58 | cdnjs |
| TTFB | 367ms | 339ms | mod_python |
| Composite | 73 | 71 | cdnjs |
cdnjs outperforms mod_python in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 71). mod_python leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.
Choose cdnjs when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose mod_python when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 373 audited cdnjs sites and 1 audited mod_python 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