Skip to content

jQuery vs Umami

Based on 1842 and 13 real audits

View jQuery details | View Umami details
MetricjQueryUmamiWinner
Performance4557Umami
Accessibility8689Umami
Best Practices8793Umami
SEO9092Umami
Security6465Umami
TTFB434ms314msUmami
Composite7375Umami
Performance
jQuery
45
Umami
57
Accessibility
jQuery
86
Umami
89
Security
jQuery
64
Umami
65
SEO
jQuery
90
Umami
92
Composite
jQuery
73
Umami
75

Umami outperforms jQuery in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). jQuery leads in no categories.

When to choose jQuery

jQuery doesn't clearly lead Umami in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose Umami

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1842 audited jQuery sites and 13 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, jQuery or Umami?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (57 vs 45 on average).
Which has better security, jQuery or Umami?
Umami sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, jQuery or Umami?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Umami (89 vs 86). 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, jQuery 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), jQuery or Umami?
Umami sites show lower Time to First Byte (314 ms vs 434 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 jQuery or Umami for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Umami scores higher on overall composite score while jQuery 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