Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs IPFS

Based on 1888 and 35 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View IPFS details
MetricHTTP/3IPFSWinner
Performance5573IPFS
Accessibility8994IPFS
Best Practices8973HTTP/3
SEO9199IPFS
Security7283IPFS
TTFB335ms209msIPFS
Composite7786IPFS
Performance
HTTP/3
55
IPFS
73
Accessibility
HTTP/3
89
IPFS
94
Security
HTTP/3
72
IPFS
83
SEO
HTTP/3
91
IPFS
99
Composite
HTTP/3
77
IPFS
86

IPFS outperforms HTTP/3 in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (86 vs 77). HTTP/3 leads in best practices.

When to choose HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 when your primary concern is best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose IPFS

Choose IPFS 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 1888 audited HTTP/3 sites and 35 audited IPFS 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, HTTP/3 or IPFS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, IPFS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (73 vs 55 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or IPFS?
IPFS sites score higher on security analysis (83 vs 72 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or IPFS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor IPFS (94 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, HTTP/3 or IPFS?
IPFS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (99 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), HTTP/3 or IPFS?
IPFS sites show lower Time to First Byte (209 ms vs 335 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 HTTP/3 or IPFS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. IPFS scores higher on overall composite score while HTTP/3 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