Skip to content

Facebook vs HSTS

Based on 1465 and 3294 real audits

View Facebook details | View HSTS details
MetricFacebookHSTSWinner
Performance3952HSTS
Accessibility8990HSTS
Best Practices8589HSTS
SEO9092HSTS
Security6773HSTS
TTFB281ms403msFacebook
Composite7378HSTS
Performance
Facebook
39
HSTS
52
Accessibility
Facebook
89
HSTS
90
Security
Facebook
67
HSTS
73
SEO
Facebook
90
HSTS
92
Composite
Facebook
73
HSTS
78

HSTS outperforms Facebook in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 73). Facebook leads in TTFB.

When to choose Facebook

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

When to choose HSTS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1465 audited Facebook sites and 3294 audited HSTS 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, Facebook or HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (52 vs 39 on average).
Which has better security, Facebook or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Facebook or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (90 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, Facebook or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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), Facebook or HSTS?
Facebook sites show lower Time to First Byte (281 ms vs 403 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 Facebook or HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HSTS scores higher on overall composite score while Facebook 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