Skip to content

Erlang vs HTTP/3

Based on 10 and 1498 real audits

View Erlang details | View HTTP/3 details
MetricErlangHTTP/3Winner
Performance6751Erlang
Accessibility9288Erlang
Best Practices10088Erlang
SEO8790HTTP/3
Security8069Erlang
TTFB1194ms298msHTTP/3
Composite8375Erlang
Performance
Erlang
67
HTTP/3
51
Accessibility
Erlang
92
HTTP/3
88
Security
Erlang
80
HTTP/3
69
SEO
Erlang
87
HTTP/3
90
Composite
Erlang
83
HTTP/3
75

Erlang outperforms HTTP/3 in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 75). HTTP/3 leads in SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Erlang

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

When to choose HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 10 audited Erlang sites and 1498 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Erlang or HTTP/3?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Erlang sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (67 vs 51 on average).
Which has better security, Erlang or HTTP/3?
Erlang sites score higher on security analysis (80 vs 69 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Erlang or HTTP/3?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Erlang (92 vs 88). 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, Erlang or HTTP/3?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (90 vs 87 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), Erlang or HTTP/3?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (298 ms vs 1194 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 Erlang or HTTP/3 for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Erlang scores higher on overall composite score while Erlang 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