| Metric | core-js | Optimise | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 19 | core-js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 80 | core-js |
| Best Practices | 84 | 73 | core-js |
| SEO | 91 | 85 | core-js |
| Security | 65 | 64 | core-js |
| TTFB | 379ms | 461ms | core-js |
| Composite | 72 | 72 | Tie |
core-js outperforms Optimise in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 72). Optimise leads in no categories.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Optimise doesn't clearly lead core-js in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 1599 audited core-js sites and 1 audited Optimise 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