| Metric | core-js | SignalR | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 36 | 35 | core-js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 73 | core-js |
| Best Practices | 84 | 71 | core-js |
| SEO | 91 | 81 | core-js |
| Security | 65 | 64 | core-js |
| TTFB | 379ms | 598ms | core-js |
| Composite | 72 | 71 | core-js |
core-js outperforms SignalR in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 71). SignalR leads in no categories.
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.
SignalR 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 2 audited SignalR 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