Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs Litespeed Cache

Based on 1448 and 27 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View Litespeed Cache details
MetricHTTP/3Litespeed CacheWinner
Performance5154Litespeed Cache
Accessibility8889Litespeed Cache
Best Practices8889Litespeed Cache
SEO9091Litespeed Cache
Security6871Litespeed Cache
TTFB283ms988msHTTP/3
Composite7578Litespeed Cache
Performance
HTTP/3
51
Litespeed Cache
54
Accessibility
HTTP/3
88
Litespeed Cache
89
Security
HTTP/3
68
Litespeed Cache
71
SEO
HTTP/3
90
Litespeed Cache
91
Composite
HTTP/3
75
Litespeed Cache
78

Litespeed Cache outperforms HTTP/3 in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 75). HTTP/3 leads in TTFB.

When to choose HTTP/3

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

When to choose Litespeed Cache

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1448 audited HTTP/3 sites and 27 audited Litespeed Cache 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 Litespeed Cache?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (54 vs 51 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or Litespeed Cache?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on security analysis (71 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or Litespeed Cache?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Litespeed Cache (89 vs 88). 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 Litespeed Cache?
Litespeed Cache 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), HTTP/3 or Litespeed Cache?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (283 ms vs 988 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 Litespeed Cache for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Litespeed Cache 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