Skip to content

Facebook vs Re:amaze

Based on 1474 and 1 real audits

View Facebook details | View Re:amaze details
MetricFacebookRe:amazeWinner
Performance3830Facebook
Accessibility8985Facebook
Best Practices8596Re:amaze
SEO90100Re:amaze
Security6785Re:amaze
TTFB281ms102msRe:amaze
Composite7382Re:amaze
Performance
Facebook
38
Re:amaze
30
Accessibility
Facebook
89
Re:amaze
85
Security
Facebook
67
Re:amaze
85
SEO
Facebook
90
Re:amaze
100
Composite
Facebook
73
Re:amaze
82

Re:amaze outperforms Facebook in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (82 vs 73). Facebook leads in performance, accessibility.

When to choose Facebook

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

When to choose Re:amaze

Choose Re:amaze when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1474 audited Facebook sites and 1 audited Re:amaze 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, Facebook or Re:amaze?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Facebook sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (38 vs 30 on average).
Which has better security, Facebook or Re:amaze?
Re:amaze sites score higher on security analysis (85 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Facebook or Re:amaze?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Facebook (89 vs 85). 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 Re:amaze?
Re:amaze sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 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 Re:amaze?
Re:amaze sites show lower Time to First Byte (102 ms vs 281 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 Re:amaze for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Facebook 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