Skip to content

Google Tag Manager vs Modern Image Formats

Based on 3047 and 12 real audits

View Google Tag Manager details | View Modern Image Formats details
MetricGoogle Tag ManagerModern Image FormatsWinner
Performance4151Modern Image Formats
Accessibility8888Tie
Best Practices8787Tie
SEO9292Tie
Security6770Modern Image Formats
TTFB433ms473msGoogle Tag Manager
Composite7477Modern Image Formats
Performance
Google Tag Manager
41
Modern Image Formats
51
Accessibility
Google Tag Manager
88
Modern Image Formats
88
Security
Google Tag Manager
67
Modern Image Formats
70
SEO
Google Tag Manager
92
Modern Image Formats
92
Composite
Google Tag Manager
74
Modern Image Formats
77

Modern Image Formats outperforms Google Tag Manager in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 74). Google Tag Manager leads in TTFB.

When to choose Google Tag Manager

Choose Google Tag Manager when your primary concern is server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Modern Image Formats

Choose Modern Image Formats when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 3047 audited Google Tag Manager sites and 12 audited Modern Image Formats 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Modern Image Formats sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (51 vs 41 on average).
Which has better security, Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats?
Modern Image Formats sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Google Tag Manager (88 vs 88). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats?
Google Tag Manager sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 92 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats?
Google Tag Manager sites show lower Time to First Byte (433 ms vs 473 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose Google Tag Manager or Modern Image Formats for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Modern Image Formats scores higher on overall composite score while Google Tag Manager may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback