Skip to content

Integral Ad Science vs Microsoft

Based on 34 and 2421 real audits

View Integral Ad Science details | View Microsoft details
MetricIntegral Ad ScienceMicrosoftWinner
Performance3539Microsoft
Accessibility8889Microsoft
Best Practices8386Microsoft
SEO9389Integral Ad Science
Security6566Microsoft
TTFB274ms329msIntegral Ad Science
Composite7272Tie
Performance
Integral Ad Science
35
Microsoft
39
Accessibility
Integral Ad Science
88
Microsoft
89
Security
Integral Ad Science
65
Microsoft
66
SEO
Integral Ad Science
93
Microsoft
89
Composite
Integral Ad Science
72
Microsoft
72

Microsoft outperforms Integral Ad Science in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 72). Integral Ad Science leads in SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Integral Ad Science

Choose Integral Ad Science when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Microsoft

Choose Microsoft 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 34 audited Integral Ad Science sites and 2421 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, Integral Ad Science or Microsoft?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Microsoft sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (39 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, Integral Ad Science or Microsoft?
Microsoft sites score higher on security analysis (66 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Integral Ad Science or Microsoft?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Microsoft (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, Integral Ad Science or Microsoft?
Integral Ad Science sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (93 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), Integral Ad Science or Microsoft?
Integral Ad Science sites show lower Time to First Byte (274 ms vs 329 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 Integral Ad Science or Microsoft for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Microsoft scores higher on overall composite score while Integral Ad Science 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