Skip to content

Hammer.js vs XRegExp

Based on 93 and 8 real audits

View Hammer.js details | View XRegExp details
MetricHammer.jsXRegExpWinner
Performance4041XRegExp
Accessibility8587XRegExp
Best Practices8496XRegExp
SEO9198XRegExp
Security6472XRegExp
TTFB500ms272msXRegExp
Composite7274XRegExp
Performance
Hammer.js
40
XRegExp
41
Accessibility
Hammer.js
85
XRegExp
87
Security
Hammer.js
64
XRegExp
72
SEO
Hammer.js
91
XRegExp
98
Composite
Hammer.js
72
XRegExp
74

XRegExp outperforms Hammer.js in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). Hammer.js leads in no categories.

When to choose Hammer.js

Hammer.js doesn't clearly lead XRegExp in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose XRegExp

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 93 audited Hammer.js sites and 8 audited XRegExp 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, Hammer.js or XRegExp?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, XRegExp sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (41 vs 40 on average).
Which has better security, Hammer.js or XRegExp?
XRegExp sites score higher on security analysis (72 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Hammer.js or XRegExp?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor XRegExp (87 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, Hammer.js or XRegExp?
XRegExp sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (98 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), Hammer.js or XRegExp?
XRegExp sites show lower Time to First Byte (272 ms vs 500 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 Hammer.js or XRegExp for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. XRegExp scores higher on overall composite score while Hammer.js 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