Skip to content

Format vs HSTS

Based on 5 and 2556 real audits

View Format details | View HSTS details
MetricFormatHSTSWinner
Performance2749HSTS
Accessibility10089Format
Best Practices7388HSTS
SEO10091Format
Security6070HSTS
TTFB1223ms364msHSTS
Composite7075HSTS
Performance
Format
27
HSTS
49
Accessibility
Format
100
HSTS
89
Security
Format
60
HSTS
70
SEO
Format
100
HSTS
91
Composite
Format
70
HSTS
75

HSTS outperforms Format in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 70). Format leads in accessibility, SEO.

When to choose Format

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

When to choose HSTS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 5 audited Format sites and 2556 audited HSTS 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, Format or HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (49 vs 27 on average).
Which has better security, Format or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 60 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Format or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Format (100 vs 89). 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, Format or HSTS?
Format sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 91 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), Format or HSTS?
HSTS sites show lower Time to First Byte (364 ms vs 1223 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 Format or HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HSTS scores higher on overall composite score while Format 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