Skip to content

core-js vs GOV.UK Toolkit

Based on 1582 and 9 real audits

View core-js details | View GOV.UK Toolkit details
Metriccore-jsGOV.UK ToolkitWinner
Performance3682GOV.UK Toolkit
Accessibility88100GOV.UK Toolkit
Best Practices84100GOV.UK Toolkit
SEO91100GOV.UK Toolkit
Security6582GOV.UK Toolkit
TTFB374ms194msGOV.UK Toolkit
Composite7286GOV.UK Toolkit
Performance
core-js
36
GOV.UK Toolkit
82
Accessibility
core-js
88
GOV.UK Toolkit
100
Security
core-js
65
GOV.UK Toolkit
82
SEO
core-js
91
GOV.UK Toolkit
100
Composite
core-js
72
GOV.UK Toolkit
86

GOV.UK Toolkit outperforms core-js in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (86 vs 72). core-js leads in no categories.

When to choose core-js

core-js doesn't clearly lead GOV.UK Toolkit in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose GOV.UK Toolkit

Choose GOV.UK Toolkit when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1582 audited core-js sites and 9 audited GOV.UK Toolkit 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, core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, GOV.UK Toolkit sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (82 vs 36 on average).
Which has better security, core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit?
GOV.UK Toolkit sites score higher on security analysis (82 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor GOV.UK Toolkit (100 vs 88). 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, core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit?
GOV.UK Toolkit sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 91 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), core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit?
GOV.UK Toolkit sites show lower Time to First Byte (194 ms vs 374 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 core-js or GOV.UK Toolkit for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. GOV.UK Toolkit scores higher on overall composite score while core-js 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