| Metric | dc.js | p5.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 37 | 30 | dc.js |
| Accessibility | 88 | 85 | dc.js |
| Best Practices | 87 | 96 | p5.js |
| SEO | 93 | 92 | dc.js |
| Security | 67 | 68 | p5.js |
| TTFB | 397ms | 33ms | p5.js |
| Composite | 74 | 75 | p5.js |
p5.js outperforms dc.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 74). dc.js leads in performance, accessibility, SEO.
Choose dc.js when your primary concern is performance and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose p5.js when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 71 audited dc.js sites and 1 audited p5.js 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