Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs Umami

Based on 2227 and 42 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View Umami details
MetricHTTP/3UmamiWinner
Performance5768Umami
Accessibility9093Umami
Best Practices9096Umami
SEO9296Umami
Security7478Umami
TTFB401ms476msHTTP/3
Composite7983Umami
Performance
HTTP/3
57
Umami
68
Accessibility
HTTP/3
90
Umami
93
Security
HTTP/3
74
Umami
78
SEO
HTTP/3
92
Umami
96
Composite
HTTP/3
79
Umami
83

Umami outperforms HTTP/3 in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 79). 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 Umami

Choose Umami when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2227 audited HTTP/3 sites and 42 audited Umami 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 Umami?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (68 vs 57 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or Umami?
Umami sites score higher on security analysis (78 vs 74 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or Umami?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Umami (93 vs 90). 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 Umami?
Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (96 vs 92 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 Umami?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (401 ms vs 476 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 Umami for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Umami 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