| Metric | Google Sign-in | Qwik | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 33 | 25 | Google Sign-in |
| Accessibility | 89 | 87 | Google Sign-in |
| Best Practices | 82 | 77 | Google Sign-in |
| SEO | 91 | 85 | Google Sign-in |
| Security | 64 | 63 | Google Sign-in |
| TTFB | 286ms | 478ms | Google Sign-in |
| Composite | 72 | 69 | Google Sign-in |
Google Sign-in outperforms Qwik in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 69). Qwik leads in no categories.
Choose Google Sign-in when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Qwik doesn't clearly lead Google Sign-in 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 107 audited Google Sign-in sites and 1 audited Qwik 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