| Metric | core-js | Python | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 50 | Python |
| Accessibility | 88 | 91 | Python |
| Best Practices | 84 | 88 | Python |
| SEO | 91 | 93 | Python |
| Security | 65 | 67 | Python |
| TTFB | 371ms | 370ms | Python |
| Composite | 72 | 75 | Python |
Python outperforms core-js in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 72). core-js leads in no categories.
core-js doesn't clearly lead Python in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose Python 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 1571 audited core-js sites and 95 audited Python 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