| Metric | Ko-fi | React | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 90 | 39 | Ko-fi |
| Accessibility | 96 | 89 | Ko-fi |
| Best Practices | 98 | 87 | Ko-fi |
| SEO | 100 | 93 | Ko-fi |
| Security | 88 | 68 | Ko-fi |
| TTFB | 342ms | 352ms | Ko-fi |
| Composite | 87 | 74 | Ko-fi |
Ko-fi outperforms React in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (87 vs 74). React leads in no categories.
Choose Ko-fi when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
React doesn't clearly lead Ko-fi 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 2 audited Ko-fi sites and 1094 audited React 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