Skip to content

Litespeed Cache vs MySQL

Based on 34 and 554 real audits

View Litespeed Cache details | View MySQL details
MetricLitespeed CacheMySQLWinner
Performance5647Litespeed Cache
Accessibility9088Litespeed Cache
Best Practices9087Litespeed Cache
SEO9291Litespeed Cache
Security7366Litespeed Cache
TTFB1285ms413msMySQL
Composite8075Litespeed Cache
Performance
Litespeed Cache
56
MySQL
47
Accessibility
Litespeed Cache
90
MySQL
88
Security
Litespeed Cache
73
MySQL
66
SEO
Litespeed Cache
92
MySQL
91
Composite
Litespeed Cache
80
MySQL
75

Litespeed Cache outperforms MySQL in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (80 vs 75). MySQL leads in TTFB.

When to choose Litespeed Cache

Choose Litespeed Cache when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose MySQL

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 34 audited Litespeed Cache sites and 554 audited MySQL 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, Litespeed Cache or MySQL?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (56 vs 47 on average).
Which has better security, Litespeed Cache or MySQL?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Litespeed Cache or MySQL?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Litespeed Cache (90 vs 88). 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, Litespeed Cache or MySQL?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 91 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), Litespeed Cache or MySQL?
MySQL sites show lower Time to First Byte (413 ms vs 1285 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 Litespeed Cache or MySQL for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Litespeed Cache scores higher on overall composite score while Litespeed Cache 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