Based on 1 and 149 real audits
| Metric | Flying Pages | HubSpot | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 79 | 37 | Flying Pages |
| Accessibility | 95 | 89 | Flying Pages |
| Best Practices | 100 | 83 | Flying Pages |
| SEO | 100 | 90 | Flying Pages |
| Security | 68 | 65 | Flying Pages |
| TTFB | 146ms | 291ms | Flying Pages |
| Composite | 80 | 73 | Flying Pages |
Flying Pages outperforms HubSpot in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (80 vs 73). HubSpot leads in no categories.
Choose Flying Pages when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
HubSpot doesn't clearly lead Flying Pages in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 1 audited Flying Pages sites and 149 audited HubSpot 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