| Metric | Concrete CMS | Cybot | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 47 | 43 | Concrete CMS |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | Cybot |
| Best Practices | 96 | 91 | Concrete CMS |
| SEO | 84 | 91 | Cybot |
| Security | 72 | 67 | Concrete CMS |
| TTFB | 376ms | 305ms | Cybot |
| Composite | 73 | 74 | Cybot |
Cybot outperforms Concrete CMS in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 73). Concrete CMS leads in performance, best practices, security.
Choose Concrete CMS when your primary concern is best practices and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Cybot 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 2 audited Concrete CMS sites and 60 audited Cybot 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