Based on 35 and 451 real audits
| Metric | GitHub Pages | Varnish | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 75 | 44 | GitHub Pages |
| Accessibility | 90 | 89 | GitHub Pages |
| Best Practices | 95 | 89 | GitHub Pages |
| SEO | 96 | 91 | GitHub Pages |
| Security | 67 | 66 | GitHub Pages |
| TTFB | 182ms | 202ms | GitHub Pages |
| Composite | 78 | 74 | GitHub Pages |
GitHub Pages outperforms Varnish in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 74). Varnish leads in no categories.
Choose GitHub Pages when your primary concern is performance and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Varnish doesn't clearly lead GitHub 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 35 audited GitHub Pages sites and 451 audited Varnish 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 →
Send Feedback