Based on 1906 and 8 real audits
| Metric | Google Analytics | Treasure Data | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 41 | 33 | Google Analytics |
| Accessibility | 87 | 86 | Google Analytics |
| Best Practices | 85 | 74 | Google Analytics |
| SEO | 91 | 90 | Google Analytics |
| Security | 64 | 58 | Google Analytics |
| TTFB | 401ms | 533ms | Google Analytics |
| Composite | 73 | 68 | Google Analytics |
Google Analytics outperforms Treasure Data in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 68). Treasure Data leads in no categories.
Choose Google Analytics when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Treasure Data doesn't clearly lead Google Analytics 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 1906 audited Google Analytics sites and 8 audited Treasure Data 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