Skip to content

HSTS vs Umami

Based on 2490 and 13 real audits

View HSTS details | View Umami details
MetricHSTSUmamiWinner
Performance4857Umami
Accessibility8989Tie
Best Practices8893Umami
SEO9192Umami
Security6965HSTS
TTFB355ms314msUmami
Composite7575Tie
Performance
HSTS
48
Umami
57
Accessibility
HSTS
89
Umami
89
Security
HSTS
69
Umami
65
SEO
HSTS
91
Umami
92
Composite
HSTS
75
Umami
75

Umami outperforms HSTS in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 75). HSTS leads in security.

When to choose HSTS

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

When to choose Umami

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2490 audited HSTS sites and 13 audited Umami 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 Umami?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (57 vs 48 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or Umami?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or Umami?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (89 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 Umami?
Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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 Umami?
Umami sites show lower Time to First Byte (314 ms vs 355 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 Umami for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Umami 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