| Metric | core-js | Global-e | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 37 | 23 | core-js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | Global-e |
| Best Practices | 85 | 80 | core-js |
| SEO | 91 | 90 | core-js |
| Security | 67 | 71 | Global-e |
| TTFB | 439ms | 245ms | Global-e |
| Composite | 74 | 73 | core-js |
core-js outperforms Global-e in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 73). Global-e leads in accessibility, security, TTFB.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Global-e 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 1840 audited core-js sites and 9 audited Global-e 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