Skip to content

gunicorn vs HSTS

Based on 9 and 2556 real audits

View gunicorn details | View HSTS details
MetricgunicornHSTSWinner
Performance5549gunicorn
Accessibility9389gunicorn
Best Practices8988gunicorn
SEO9591gunicorn
Security6970HSTS
TTFB661ms364msHSTS
Composite7775gunicorn
Performance
gunicorn
55
HSTS
49
Accessibility
gunicorn
93
HSTS
89
Security
gunicorn
69
HSTS
70
SEO
gunicorn
95
HSTS
91
Composite
gunicorn
77
HSTS
75

gunicorn outperforms HSTS in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 75). HSTS leads in security, TTFB.

When to choose gunicorn

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

When to choose HSTS

Choose HSTS when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 9 audited gunicorn sites and 2556 audited HSTS 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, gunicorn or HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, gunicorn sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (55 vs 49 on average).
Which has better security, gunicorn or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 69 on average).
Which has better accessibility, gunicorn or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor gunicorn (93 vs 89). 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, gunicorn or HSTS?
gunicorn sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (95 vs 91 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), gunicorn or HSTS?
HSTS sites show lower Time to First Byte (364 ms vs 661 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 gunicorn or HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. gunicorn scores higher on overall composite score while gunicorn 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