Based on 1582 and 4 real audits
| Metric | core-js | Draftpress HFCM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 47 | Draftpress HFCM |
| Accessibility | 88 | 90 | Draftpress HFCM |
| Best Practices | 84 | 94 | Draftpress HFCM |
| SEO | 91 | 90 | core-js |
| Security | 65 | 77 | Draftpress HFCM |
| TTFB | 374ms | 312ms | Draftpress HFCM |
| Composite | 72 | 79 | Draftpress HFCM |
Draftpress HFCM outperforms core-js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (79 vs 72). core-js leads in SEO.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Draftpress HFCM when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1582 audited core-js sites and 4 audited Draftpress HFCM 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