Skip to content

Cowboy vs Erlang

Based on 1 and 12 real audits

View Cowboy details | View Erlang details
MetricCowboyErlangWinner
Performance9071Cowboy
Accessibility7991Erlang
Best Practices7796Erlang
SEO8387Erlang
Security7580Erlang
TTFB182ms1022msCowboy
Composite7883Erlang
Performance
Cowboy
90
Erlang
71
Accessibility
Cowboy
79
Erlang
91
Security
Cowboy
75
Erlang
80
SEO
Cowboy
83
Erlang
87
Composite
Cowboy
78
Erlang
83

Erlang outperforms Cowboy in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 78). Cowboy leads in performance, TTFB.

When to choose Cowboy

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

When to choose Erlang

Choose Erlang when your primary concern is best practices and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Cowboy sites and 12 audited Erlang 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, Cowboy or Erlang?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Cowboy sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (90 vs 71 on average).
Which has better security, Cowboy or Erlang?
Erlang sites score higher on security analysis (80 vs 75 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Cowboy or Erlang?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Erlang (91 vs 79). 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, Cowboy or Erlang?
Erlang sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (87 vs 83 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), Cowboy or Erlang?
Cowboy sites show lower Time to First Byte (182 ms vs 1022 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 Cowboy or Erlang for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Cowboy scores higher on overall composite score while Cowboy 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