Based on 54 and 1 real audits
| Metric | Cybot | Fortinet FortiGate | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 43 | 35 | Cybot |
| Accessibility | 89 | 97 | Fortinet FortiGate |
| Best Practices | 92 | 100 | Fortinet FortiGate |
| SEO | 92 | 100 | Fortinet FortiGate |
| Security | 66 | 65 | Cybot |
| TTFB | 267ms | 262ms | Fortinet FortiGate |
| Composite | 74 | 73 | Cybot |
Fortinet FortiGate outperforms Cybot in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 74). Cybot leads in performance, security, composite score.
Choose Cybot when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Fortinet FortiGate when your primary concern is accessibility and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 54 audited Cybot sites and 1 audited Fortinet FortiGate 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