Skip to content

core-js vs web-vitals

Based on 1627 and 154 real audits

View core-js details | View web-vitals details
Metriccore-jsweb-vitalsWinner
Performance3637web-vitals
Accessibility8889web-vitals
Best Practices8484Tie
SEO9190core-js
Security6565Tie
TTFB385ms410mscore-js
Composite7373Tie
Performance
core-js
36
web-vitals
37
Accessibility
core-js
88
web-vitals
89
Security
core-js
65
web-vitals
65
SEO
core-js
91
web-vitals
90
Composite
core-js
73
web-vitals
73

core-js and web-vitals are closely matched, each leading in different categories. core-js has a composite score of 73 while web-vitals scores 73.

When to choose core-js

Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose web-vitals

Choose web-vitals when your primary concern is performance and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1627 audited core-js sites and 154 audited web-vitals 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, core-js or web-vitals?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, web-vitals sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (37 vs 36 on average).
Which has better security, core-js or web-vitals?
core-js sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, core-js or web-vitals?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor web-vitals (89 vs 88). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, core-js or web-vitals?
core-js sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), core-js or web-vitals?
core-js sites show lower Time to First Byte (385 ms vs 410 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose core-js or web-vitals for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. web-vitals scores higher on overall composite score while core-js may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback