Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs Paraglide JS

Based on 1996 and 12 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View Paraglide JS details
MetricHTTP/3Paraglide JSWinner
Performance5666Paraglide JS
Accessibility8995Paraglide JS
Best Practices8995Paraglide JS
SEO9198Paraglide JS
Security7384Paraglide JS
TTFB365ms255msParaglide JS
Composite7885Paraglide JS
Performance
HTTP/3
56
Paraglide JS
66
Accessibility
HTTP/3
89
Paraglide JS
95
Security
HTTP/3
73
Paraglide JS
84
SEO
HTTP/3
91
Paraglide JS
98
Composite
HTTP/3
78
Paraglide JS
85

Paraglide JS outperforms HTTP/3 in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (85 vs 78). HTTP/3 leads in no categories.

When to choose HTTP/3

HTTP/3 doesn't clearly lead Paraglide JS in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose Paraglide JS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1996 audited HTTP/3 sites and 12 audited Paraglide JS 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 Paraglide JS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Paraglide JS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (66 vs 56 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or Paraglide JS?
Paraglide JS sites score higher on security analysis (84 vs 73 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or Paraglide JS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Paraglide JS (95 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 Paraglide JS?
Paraglide JS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (98 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 Paraglide JS?
Paraglide JS sites show lower Time to First Byte (255 ms vs 365 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 Paraglide JS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Paraglide JS 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