Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs Microsoft

Based on 1542 and 2445 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View Microsoft details
MetricHTTP/3MicrosoftWinner
Performance5138HTTP/3
Accessibility8888Tie
Best Practices8885HTTP/3
SEO9089HTTP/3
Security6967HTTP/3
TTFB305ms328msHTTP/3
Composite7573HTTP/3
Performance
HTTP/3
51
Microsoft
38
Accessibility
HTTP/3
88
Microsoft
88
Security
HTTP/3
69
Microsoft
67
SEO
HTTP/3
90
Microsoft
89
Composite
HTTP/3
75
Microsoft
73

HTTP/3 outperforms Microsoft in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Microsoft leads in no categories.

When to choose HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 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 Microsoft

Microsoft doesn't clearly lead HTTP/3 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 1542 audited HTTP/3 sites and 2445 audited Microsoft 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 Microsoft?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HTTP/3 sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (51 vs 38 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or Microsoft?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or Microsoft?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HTTP/3 (88 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 Microsoft?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (90 vs 89 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 Microsoft?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (305 ms vs 328 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 Microsoft for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HTTP/3 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