Skip to content

HSTS vs web-vitals

Based on 2556 and 151 real audits

View HSTS details | View web-vitals details
MetricHSTSweb-vitalsWinner
Performance4936HSTS
Accessibility8989Tie
Best Practices8884HSTS
SEO9190HSTS
Security7065HSTS
TTFB364ms415msHSTS
Composite7572HSTS
Performance
HSTS
49
web-vitals
36
Accessibility
HSTS
89
web-vitals
89
Security
HSTS
70
web-vitals
65
SEO
HSTS
91
web-vitals
90
Composite
HSTS
75
web-vitals
72

HSTS outperforms web-vitals in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 72). web-vitals leads in no categories.

When to choose HSTS

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

When to choose web-vitals

web-vitals doesn't clearly lead HSTS in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2556 audited HSTS sites and 151 audited web-vitals 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 web-vitals?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (49 vs 36 on average).
Which has better security, HSTS or web-vitals?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HSTS or web-vitals?
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 web-vitals?
HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 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 web-vitals?
HSTS sites show lower Time to First Byte (364 ms vs 415 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 web-vitals 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