| Metric | core-js | Hammer.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 40 | Hammer.js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 85 | core-js |
| Best Practices | 84 | 85 | Hammer.js |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 66 | 65 | core-js |
| TTFB | 387ms | 494ms | core-js |
| Composite | 73 | 72 | core-js |
core-js outperforms Hammer.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Hammer.js leads in performance, best practices.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Hammer.js when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1650 audited core-js sites and 97 audited Hammer.js 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 →
Send Feedback