Skip to content

HSTS vs Lunr.js

Based on 3294 and 2 real audits

View HSTS details | View Lunr.js details
MetricHSTSLunr.jsWinner
Performance5358Lunr.js
Accessibility9085HSTS
Best Practices8996Lunr.js
SEO9284HSTS
Security7375Lunr.js
TTFB403ms388msLunr.js
Composite7875HSTS
Performance
HSTS
53
Lunr.js
58
Accessibility
HSTS
90
Lunr.js
85
Security
HSTS
73
Lunr.js
75
SEO
HSTS
92
Lunr.js
84
Composite
HSTS
78
Lunr.js
75

Lunr.js outperforms HSTS in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 78). HSTS leads in accessibility, SEO, composite score.

When to choose HSTS

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

When to choose Lunr.js

Choose Lunr.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.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 3294 audited HSTS sites and 2 audited Lunr.js 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, HSTS or Lunr.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Lunr.js sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (58 vs 53 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or Lunr.js?
Lunr.js sites score higher on security analysis (75 vs 73 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or Lunr.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (90 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, HSTS or Lunr.js?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 84 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 Lunr.js?
Lunr.js sites show lower Time to First Byte (388 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 Lunr.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Lunr.js 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