| Metric | FC2 Analyzer | Nginx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 88 | 49 | FC2 Analyzer |
| Accessibility | 74 | 86 | Nginx |
| Best Practices | 100 | 87 | FC2 Analyzer |
| SEO | 85 | 90 | Nginx |
| Security | 70 | 65 | FC2 Analyzer |
| TTFB | 537ms | 475ms | Nginx |
| Composite | 77 | 73 | FC2 Analyzer |
FC2 Analyzer outperforms Nginx in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 73). Nginx leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.
Choose FC2 Analyzer when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Nginx when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1 audited FC2 Analyzer sites and 863 audited Nginx 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