Based on 1432 and 4 real audits
| Metric | Level Access | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 39 | 38 | |
| Accessibility | 89 | 89 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 85 | 84 | |
| SEO | 90 | 94 | Level Access |
| Security | 67 | 63 | |
| TTFB | 280ms | 205ms | Level Access |
| Composite | 73 | 72 |
Facebook outperforms Level Access in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Level Access leads in SEO, TTFB.
Choose Facebook when your primary concern is security and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Level Access when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1432 audited Facebook sites and 4 audited Level Access 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