Skip to content

Facebook vs HSTS

Based on 1405 and 2487 real audits

View Facebook details | View HSTS details
MetricFacebookHSTSWinner
Performance3848HSTS
Accessibility8989Tie
Best Practices8488HSTS
SEO9091HSTS
Security6769HSTS
TTFB281ms354msFacebook
Composite7275HSTS
Performance
Facebook
38
HSTS
48
Accessibility
Facebook
89
HSTS
89
Security
Facebook
67
HSTS
69
SEO
Facebook
90
HSTS
91
Composite
Facebook
72
HSTS
75

HSTS outperforms Facebook in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 72). 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 best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1405 audited Facebook sites and 2487 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 (48 vs 38 on average).
Which has better security, Facebook or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Facebook or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Facebook (89 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 (91 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 354 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