| Metric | core-js | Hoefler&Co | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 37 | Hoefler&Co |
| Accessibility | 88 | 90 | Hoefler&Co |
| Best Practices | 84 | 85 | Hoefler&Co |
| SEO | 91 | 94 | Hoefler&Co |
| Security | 65 | 62 | core-js |
| TTFB | 374ms | 364ms | Hoefler&Co |
| Composite | 72 | 71 | core-js |
Hoefler&Co outperforms core-js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (71 vs 72). core-js leads in security, composite score.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Hoefler&Co when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1582 audited core-js sites and 8 audited Hoefler&Co 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