Skip to content

HSTS vs HTTP/3

Based on 3294 and 2227 real audits

View HSTS details | View HTTP/3 details
MetricHSTSHTTP/3Winner
Performance5257HTTP/3
Accessibility9090Tie
Best Practices8990HTTP/3
SEO9292Tie
Security7374HTTP/3
TTFB403ms401msHTTP/3
Composite7879HTTP/3
Performance
HSTS
52
HTTP/3
57
Accessibility
HSTS
90
HTTP/3
90
Security
HSTS
73
HTTP/3
74
SEO
HSTS
92
HTTP/3
92
Composite
HSTS
78
HTTP/3
79

HTTP/3 outperforms HSTS in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (79 vs 78). HSTS leads in no categories.

When to choose HSTS

HSTS doesn't clearly lead HTTP/3 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 HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 when your primary concern is performance and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 3294 audited HSTS sites and 2227 audited HTTP/3 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, HSTS or HTTP/3?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HTTP/3 sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (57 vs 52 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or HTTP/3?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on security analysis (74 vs 73 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or HTTP/3?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (90 vs 90). 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, HSTS or HTTP/3?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 92 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), HSTS or HTTP/3?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (401 ms vs 403 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 HSTS or HTTP/3 for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HTTP/3 scores higher on overall composite score while HSTS 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