Skip to content

HSTS vs Imperva

Based on 3016 and 27 real audits

View HSTS details | View Imperva details
MetricHSTSImpervaWinner
Performance5222HSTS
Accessibility8969HSTS
Best Practices8979HSTS
SEO9167HSTS
Security7265HSTS
TTFB385ms382msImperva
Composite7772HSTS
Performance
HSTS
52
Imperva
22
Accessibility
HSTS
89
Imperva
69
Security
HSTS
72
Imperva
65
SEO
HSTS
91
Imperva
67
Composite
HSTS
77
Imperva
72

HSTS outperforms Imperva in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 72). Imperva leads in TTFB.

When to choose HSTS

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

When to choose Imperva

Choose Imperva when your primary concern is 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 3016 audited HSTS sites and 27 audited Imperva 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 Imperva?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (52 vs 22 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or Imperva?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (72 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or Imperva?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (89 vs 69). 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 Imperva?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 67 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 Imperva?
Imperva sites show lower Time to First Byte (382 ms vs 385 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 Imperva for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HSTS 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