| Metric | cdnjs | SockJS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 39 | 43 | SockJS |
| Accessibility | 88 | 72 | cdnjs |
| Best Practices | 86 | 75 | cdnjs |
| SEO | 90 | 91 | SockJS |
| Security | 65 | 63 | cdnjs |
| TTFB | 366ms | 243ms | SockJS |
| Composite | 73 | 71 | cdnjs |
cdnjs outperforms SockJS in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 71). SockJS leads in performance, SEO, TTFB.
Choose cdnjs when your primary concern is accessibility and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose SockJS when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 358 audited cdnjs sites and 3 audited SockJS 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