| Metric | Discourse | HTTP/3 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 76 | 52 | Discourse |
| Accessibility | 94 | 88 | Discourse |
| Best Practices | 100 | 88 | Discourse |
| SEO | 100 | 91 | Discourse |
| Security | 79 | 70 | Discourse |
| TTFB | 297ms | 321ms | Discourse |
| Composite | 83 | 76 | Discourse |
Discourse outperforms HTTP/3 in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 76). HTTP/3 leads in no categories.
Choose Discourse when your primary concern is performance and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
HTTP/3 doesn't clearly lead Discourse 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 2 audited Discourse sites and 1646 audited HTTP/3 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