Skip to content

cdnjs vs Raphael

Based on 461 and 12 real audits

View cdnjs details | View Raphael details
MetriccdnjsRaphaelWinner
Performance4360Raphael
Accessibility8872cdnjs
Best Practices8795Raphael
SEO9188cdnjs
Security6873Raphael
TTFB399ms545mscdnjs
Composite7476Raphael
Performance
cdnjs
43
Raphael
60
Accessibility
cdnjs
88
Raphael
72
Security
cdnjs
68
Raphael
73
SEO
cdnjs
91
Raphael
88
Composite
cdnjs
74
Raphael
76

Raphael outperforms cdnjs in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 74). cdnjs leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose cdnjs

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

When to choose Raphael

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 461 audited cdnjs sites and 12 audited Raphael 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, cdnjs or Raphael?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Raphael sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (60 vs 43 on average).
Which has better security, cdnjs or Raphael?
Raphael sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, cdnjs or Raphael?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor cdnjs (88 vs 72). 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 Raphael?
cdnjs sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 88 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 Raphael?
cdnjs sites show lower Time to First Byte (399 ms vs 545 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 Raphael for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Raphael 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