| Metric | jQuery | Tanx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 45 | 38 | jQuery |
| Accessibility | 86 | 74 | jQuery |
| Best Practices | 87 | 65 | jQuery |
| SEO | 90 | 77 | jQuery |
| Security | 65 | 61 | jQuery |
| TTFB | 438ms | 1050ms | jQuery |
| Composite | 73 | 69 | jQuery |
jQuery outperforms Tanx in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 69). Tanx leads in no categories.
Choose jQuery when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Tanx doesn't clearly lead jQuery in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 1857 audited jQuery sites and 11 audited Tanx 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 →
Send Feedback