Skip to content

Google Tag Manager vs Shareaholic

Based on 2504 and 3 real audits

View Google Tag Manager details | View Shareaholic details
MetricGoogle Tag ManagerShareaholicWinner
Performance4042Shareaholic
Accessibility8885Google Tag Manager
Best Practices8680Google Tag Manager
SEO9187Google Tag Manager
Security6561Google Tag Manager
TTFB372ms550msGoogle Tag Manager
Composite7372Google Tag Manager
Performance
Google Tag Manager
40
Shareaholic
42
Accessibility
Google Tag Manager
88
Shareaholic
85
Security
Google Tag Manager
65
Shareaholic
61
SEO
Google Tag Manager
91
Shareaholic
87
Composite
Google Tag Manager
73
Shareaholic
72

Google Tag Manager outperforms Shareaholic in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Shareaholic leads in performance.

When to choose Google Tag Manager

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

When to choose Shareaholic

Choose Shareaholic when your primary concern is performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2504 audited Google Tag Manager sites and 3 audited Shareaholic 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, Google Tag Manager or Shareaholic?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Shareaholic sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (42 vs 40 on average).
Which has better security, Google Tag Manager or Shareaholic?
Google Tag Manager sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 61 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Google Tag Manager or Shareaholic?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Google Tag Manager (88 vs 85). 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 Shareaholic?
Google Tag Manager sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 87 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 Shareaholic?
Google Tag Manager sites show lower Time to First Byte (372 ms vs 550 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 Shareaholic for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Shareaholic 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