Based on 1006 and 2487 real audits
| Metric | Google Font API | HSTS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 44 | 48 | HSTS |
| Accessibility | 87 | 89 | HSTS |
| Best Practices | 86 | 88 | HSTS |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 69 | HSTS |
| TTFB | 398ms | 354ms | HSTS |
| Composite | 73 | 75 | HSTS |
HSTS outperforms Google Font API in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Google Font API leads in no categories.
Google Font API doesn't clearly lead HSTS in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose HSTS when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1006 audited Google Font API sites and 2487 audited HSTS 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