| Metric | Hammer.js | Tilda | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40 | 64 | Tilda |
| Accessibility | 85 | 84 | Hammer.js |
| Best Practices | 84 | 100 | Tilda |
| SEO | 91 | 96 | Tilda |
| Security | 64 | 61 | Hammer.js |
| TTFB | 500ms | 217ms | Tilda |
| Composite | 72 | 73 | Tilda |
Tilda outperforms Hammer.js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Hammer.js leads in accessibility, security.
Choose Hammer.js when your primary concern is security and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Tilda when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 93 audited Hammer.js sites and 4 audited Tilda 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.
Send Feedback