Based on 197 and 263 real audits
| Metric | lit-element | lit-html | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 37 | 36 | lit-element |
| Accessibility | 88 | 88 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 87 | 87 | Tie |
| SEO | 89 | 89 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 65 | Tie |
| TTFB | 279ms | 287ms | lit-element |
| Composite | 73 | 73 | Tie |
lit-element outperforms lit-html in 2 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 73). lit-html leads in no categories.
Choose lit-element when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
lit-html doesn't clearly lead lit-element 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 197 audited lit-element sites and 263 audited lit-html 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