Skip to content

HSTS vs shadcn/ui

Based on 2639 and 56 real audits

View HSTS details | View shadcn/ui details
MetricHSTSshadcn/uiWinner
Performance4946HSTS
Accessibility8991shadcn/ui
Best Practices8887HSTS
SEO9195shadcn/ui
Security7070Tie
TTFB381ms363msshadcn/ui
Composite7576shadcn/ui
Performance
HSTS
49
shadcn/ui
46
Accessibility
HSTS
89
shadcn/ui
91
Security
HSTS
70
shadcn/ui
70
SEO
HSTS
91
shadcn/ui
95
Composite
HSTS
75
shadcn/ui
76

shadcn/ui outperforms HSTS in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 75). HSTS leads in performance, best practices.

When to choose HSTS

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

When to choose shadcn/ui

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2639 audited HSTS sites and 56 audited shadcn/ui 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 shadcn/ui?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (49 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or shadcn/ui?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 70 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or shadcn/ui?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor shadcn/ui (91 vs 89). 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 shadcn/ui?
shadcn/ui sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (95 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), HSTS or shadcn/ui?
shadcn/ui sites show lower Time to First Byte (363 ms vs 381 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 shadcn/ui 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