Skip to content

eSSENTIAL Accessibility vs New Relic

Based on 3 and 177 real audits

View eSSENTIAL Accessibility details | View New Relic details
MetriceSSENTIAL AccessibilityNew RelicWinner
Performance4135eSSENTIAL Accessibility
Accessibility9189eSSENTIAL Accessibility
Best Practices8785eSSENTIAL Accessibility
SEO9490eSSENTIAL Accessibility
Security6265New Relic
TTFB49ms236mseSSENTIAL Accessibility
Composite7372eSSENTIAL Accessibility
Performance
eSSENTIAL Accessibility
41
New Relic
35
Accessibility
eSSENTIAL Accessibility
91
New Relic
89
Security
eSSENTIAL Accessibility
62
New Relic
65
SEO
eSSENTIAL Accessibility
94
New Relic
90
Composite
eSSENTIAL Accessibility
73
New Relic
72

eSSENTIAL Accessibility outperforms New Relic in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). New Relic leads in security.

When to choose eSSENTIAL Accessibility

Choose eSSENTIAL Accessibility when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose New Relic

Choose New Relic when your primary concern is security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 3 audited eSSENTIAL Accessibility sites and 177 audited New Relic 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, eSSENTIAL Accessibility sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (41 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic?
New Relic sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 62 on average).
Which has better accessibility, eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor eSSENTIAL Accessibility (91 vs 89). 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, eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic?
eSSENTIAL Accessibility sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (94 vs 90 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), eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic?
eSSENTIAL Accessibility sites show lower Time to First Byte (49 ms vs 236 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 eSSENTIAL Accessibility or New Relic for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. eSSENTIAL Accessibility scores higher on overall composite score while eSSENTIAL Accessibility 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