| Metric | Ember.js | Moment.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 47 | 37 | Ember.js |
| Accessibility | 91 | 86 | Ember.js |
| Best Practices | 86 | 85 | Ember.js |
| SEO | 100 | 89 | Ember.js |
| Security | 68 | 64 | Ember.js |
| TTFB | 491ms | 495ms | Ember.js |
| Composite | 74 | 72 | Ember.js |
Ember.js outperforms Moment.js in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). Moment.js leads in no categories.
Choose Ember.js when your primary concern is SEO and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Moment.js doesn't clearly lead Ember.js 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 Ember.js sites and 110 audited Moment.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