Based on 2504 and 93 real audits
| Metric | Google Tag Manager | Hammer.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40 | 40 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 88 | 85 | Google Tag Manager |
| Best Practices | 86 | 84 | Google Tag Manager |
| SEO | 91 | 91 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 64 | Google Tag Manager |
| TTFB | 372ms | 500ms | Google Tag Manager |
| Composite | 73 | 72 | Google Tag Manager |
Google Tag Manager outperforms Hammer.js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Hammer.js leads in no categories.
Choose Google Tag Manager when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Hammer.js doesn't clearly lead Google Tag Manager 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 2504 audited Google Tag Manager sites and 93 audited Hammer.js 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