| Metric | Klaviyo | langify | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 28 | 33 | langify |
| Accessibility | 87 | 87 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 80 | 96 | langify |
| SEO | 91 | 92 | langify |
| Security | 70 | 70 | Tie |
| TTFB | 223ms | 183ms | langify |
| Composite | 73 | 74 | langify |
langify outperforms Klaviyo in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 73). Klaviyo leads in no categories.
Klaviyo doesn't clearly lead langify in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose langify when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 48 audited Klaviyo sites and 1 audited langify 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