| Metric | Highlight.js | HSTS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 48 | 49 | HSTS |
| Accessibility | 85 | 89 | HSTS |
| Best Practices | 90 | 88 | Highlight.js |
| SEO | 88 | 91 | HSTS |
| Security | 64 | 70 | HSTS |
| TTFB | 258ms | 381ms | Highlight.js |
| Composite | 73 | 75 | HSTS |
HSTS outperforms Highlight.js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Highlight.js leads in best practices, TTFB.
Choose Highlight.js when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose HSTS when your primary concern is security and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 31 audited Highlight.js sites and 2656 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 →
Send Feedback