| Metric | Google Ads | Miva | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 38 | 60 | Miva |
| Accessibility | 86 | 82 | Google Ads |
| Best Practices | 83 | 73 | Google Ads |
| SEO | 90 | 89 | Google Ads |
| Security | 66 | 77 | Miva |
| TTFB | 443ms | 1322ms | Google Ads |
| Composite | 73 | 80 | Miva |
Google Ads outperforms Miva in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 80). Miva leads in performance, security, composite score.
Choose Google Ads when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Miva when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 68 audited Google Ads sites and 3 audited Miva 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