| Metric | Foundation | mod_wsgi | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 41 | 73 | mod_wsgi |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | mod_wsgi |
| Best Practices | 83 | 98 | mod_wsgi |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 66 | mod_wsgi |
| TTFB | 449ms | 211ms | mod_wsgi |
| Composite | 73 | 75 | mod_wsgi |
mod_wsgi outperforms Foundation in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Foundation leads in no categories.
Foundation doesn't clearly lead mod_wsgi in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose mod_wsgi when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 31 audited Foundation sites and 2 audited mod_wsgi 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