Based on 2486 and 173 real audits
| Metric | Google Tag Manager | Underscore.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40 | 38 | Google Tag Manager |
| Accessibility | 88 | 87 | Google Tag Manager |
| Best Practices | 86 | 83 | Google Tag Manager |
| SEO | 91 | 90 | Google Tag Manager |
| Security | 64 | 64 | Tie |
| TTFB | 370ms | 420ms | Google Tag Manager |
| Composite | 73 | 72 | Google Tag Manager |
Google Tag Manager outperforms Underscore.js in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Underscore.js leads in no categories.
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.
Underscore.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 2486 audited Google Tag Manager sites and 173 audited Underscore.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