Skip to content

HTTP/3 vs Umami

Based on 1542 and 14 real audits

View HTTP/3 details | View Umami details
MetricHTTP/3UmamiWinner
Performance5159Umami
Accessibility8889Umami
Best Practices8893Umami
SEO9092Umami
Security6966HTTP/3
TTFB305ms314msHTTP/3
Composite7576Umami
Performance
HTTP/3
51
Umami
59
Accessibility
HTTP/3
88
Umami
89
Security
HTTP/3
69
Umami
66
SEO
HTTP/3
90
Umami
92
Composite
HTTP/3
75
Umami
76

Umami outperforms HTTP/3 in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 75). HTTP/3 leads in security, TTFB.

When to choose HTTP/3

Choose HTTP/3 when your primary concern is server response time and security. 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 1542 audited HTTP/3 sites and 14 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 (59 vs 51 on average).
Which has better security, HTTP/3 or Umami?
HTTP/3 sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, HTTP/3 or Umami?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Umami (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 Umami?
Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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 Umami?
HTTP/3 sites show lower Time to First Byte (305 ms vs 314 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