| Metric | jQuery UI | toastr | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 42 | 45 | toastr |
| Accessibility | 87 | 78 | jQuery UI |
| Best Practices | 87 | 83 | jQuery UI |
| SEO | 90 | 85 | jQuery UI |
| Security | 66 | 69 | toastr |
| TTFB | 462ms | 536ms | jQuery UI |
| Composite | 73 | 74 | toastr |
jQuery UI outperforms toastr in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 74). toastr leads in performance, security, composite score.
Choose jQuery UI when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose toastr when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 400 audited jQuery UI sites and 8 audited toastr 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 →
Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.
Send Feedback