| Metric | core-js | Flip-Pay | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 31 | core-js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 90 | Flip-Pay |
| Best Practices | 84 | 73 | core-js |
| SEO | 91 | 88 | core-js |
| Security | 65 | 63 | core-js |
| TTFB | 379ms | 225ms | Flip-Pay |
| Composite | 72 | 74 | Flip-Pay |
core-js outperforms Flip-Pay in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 74). Flip-Pay leads in accessibility, TTFB, composite score.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is best practices and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Flip-Pay when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1599 audited core-js sites and 2 audited Flip-Pay 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