Based on 5 and 775 real audits
| Metric | Constant Contact | WordPress | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 50 | 46 | Constant Contact |
| Accessibility | 95 | 88 | Constant Contact |
| Best Practices | 95 | 86 | Constant Contact |
| SEO | 95 | 91 | Constant Contact |
| Security | 75 | 66 | Constant Contact |
| TTFB | 344ms | 366ms | Constant Contact |
| Composite | 79 | 74 | Constant Contact |
Constant Contact outperforms WordPress in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (79 vs 74). WordPress leads in no categories.
Choose Constant Contact when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
WordPress doesn't clearly lead Constant Contact in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 5 audited Constant Contact sites and 775 audited WordPress 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