Based on 1161 and 2853 real audits
| Metric | Google Font API | HSTS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 44 | 50 | HSTS |
| Accessibility | 87 | 89 | HSTS |
| Best Practices | 87 | 88 | HSTS |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 66 | 71 | HSTS |
| TTFB | 433ms | 368ms | HSTS |
| Composite | 74 | 76 | HSTS |
HSTS outperforms Google Font API in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 74). 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 1161 audited Google Font API sites and 2853 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