Skip to content

Conduit vs Lunr.js

Based on 1 and 2 real audits

View Conduit details | View Lunr.js details
MetricConduitLunr.jsWinner
Performance6158Conduit
Accessibility8485Lunr.js
Best Practices9696Tie
SEO8584Conduit
Security6975Lunr.js
TTFB342ms388msConduit
Composite7475Lunr.js
Performance
Conduit
61
Lunr.js
58
Accessibility
Conduit
84
Lunr.js
85
Security
Conduit
69
Lunr.js
75
SEO
Conduit
85
Lunr.js
84
Composite
Conduit
74
Lunr.js
75

Conduit and Lunr.js are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Conduit has a composite score of 74 while Lunr.js scores 75.

When to choose Conduit

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

When to choose Lunr.js

Choose Lunr.js when your primary concern is security and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Conduit sites and 2 audited Lunr.js 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, Conduit or Lunr.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Conduit sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (61 vs 58 on average).
Which has better security, Conduit or Lunr.js?
Lunr.js sites score higher on security analysis (75 vs 69 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Conduit or Lunr.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Lunr.js (85 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, Conduit or Lunr.js?
Conduit sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (85 vs 84 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), Conduit or Lunr.js?
Conduit sites show lower Time to First Byte (342 ms vs 388 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 Conduit or Lunr.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Conduit scores higher on overall composite score while Conduit 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