| Metric | FancyBox | Smartocto | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 52 | 28 | FancyBox |
| Accessibility | 82 | 83 | Smartocto |
| Best Practices | 89 | 88 | FancyBox |
| SEO | 91 | 100 | Smartocto |
| Security | 62 | 76 | Smartocto |
| TTFB | 712ms | 122ms | Smartocto |
| Composite | 73 | 78 | Smartocto |
Smartocto outperforms FancyBox in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 73). FancyBox leads in performance, best practices.
Choose FancyBox when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Smartocto when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 109 audited FancyBox sites and 1 audited Smartocto 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