Based on 1805 and 2 real audits
| Metric | Google Analytics | punycode | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 41 | 69 | punycode |
| Accessibility | 87 | 75 | Google Analytics |
| Best Practices | 85 | 96 | punycode |
| SEO | 91 | 71 | Google Analytics |
| Security | 64 | 61 | Google Analytics |
| TTFB | 382ms | 1372ms | Google Analytics |
| Composite | 72 | 73 | punycode |
Google Analytics outperforms punycode in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 73). punycode leads in performance, best practices, composite score.
Choose Google Analytics when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose punycode when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1805 audited Google Analytics sites and 2 audited punycode 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