| Metric | core-js | Global-e | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 22 | core-js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | Global-e |
| Best Practices | 84 | 81 | core-js |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 69 | Global-e |
| TTFB | 379ms | 155ms | Global-e |
| Composite | 72 | 72 | Tie |
Global-e outperforms core-js in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 72). core-js leads in performance, best practices.
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 1599 audited core-js sites and 8 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