Based on 641 and 2 real audits
| Metric | Facebook SDK | Network for Good | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 32 | 43 | Network for Good |
| Accessibility | 88 | 69 | Facebook SDK |
| Best Practices | 79 | 96 | Network for Good |
| SEO | 91 | 96 | Network for Good |
| Security | 64 | 64 | Tie |
| TTFB | 395ms | 228ms | Network for Good |
| Composite | 72 | 70 | Facebook SDK |
Network for Good outperforms Facebook SDK in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (70 vs 72). Facebook SDK leads in accessibility, composite score.
Choose Facebook SDK when your primary concern is accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Network for Good 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 641 audited Facebook SDK sites and 2 audited Network for Good 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