Skip to content

Contao vs parallax.js

Based on 1 and 21 real audits

View Contao details | View parallax.js details
MetricContaoparallax.jsWinner
Performance9850Contao
Accessibility9389Contao
Best Practices10091Contao
SEO10092Contao
Security8269Contao
TTFB1260ms396msparallax.js
Composite8575Contao
Performance
Contao
98
parallax.js
50
Accessibility
Contao
93
parallax.js
89
Security
Contao
82
parallax.js
69
SEO
Contao
100
parallax.js
92
Composite
Contao
85
parallax.js
75

Contao outperforms parallax.js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (85 vs 75). parallax.js leads in TTFB.

When to choose Contao

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

When to choose parallax.js

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Contao sites and 21 audited parallax.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, Contao or parallax.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Contao sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (98 vs 50 on average).
Which has better security, Contao or parallax.js?
Contao sites score higher on security analysis (82 vs 69 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Contao or parallax.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Contao (93 vs 89). 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, Contao or parallax.js?
Contao sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 92 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), Contao or parallax.js?
parallax.js sites show lower Time to First Byte (396 ms vs 1260 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 Contao or parallax.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Contao scores higher on overall composite score while Contao 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