Based on 7 and 198 real audits
| Metric | Gannett CMS | lit-element | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 50 | 37 | Gannett CMS |
| Accessibility | 87 | 88 | lit-element |
| Best Practices | 93 | 87 | Gannett CMS |
| SEO | 51 | 89 | lit-element |
| Security | 70 | 65 | Gannett CMS |
| TTFB | 117ms | 279ms | Gannett CMS |
| Composite | 73 | 73 | Tie |
Gannett CMS outperforms lit-element in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 73). lit-element leads in accessibility, SEO.
Choose Gannett CMS when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose lit-element when your primary concern is SEO and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 7 audited Gannett CMS sites and 198 audited lit-element 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