Skip to content

Litespeed Cache vs PHP

Based on 27 and 1012 real audits

View Litespeed Cache details | View PHP details
MetricLitespeed CachePHPWinner
Performance5446Litespeed Cache
Accessibility8989Tie
Best Practices8987Litespeed Cache
SEO9191Tie
Security7165Litespeed Cache
TTFB988ms409msPHP
Composite7874Litespeed Cache
Performance
Litespeed Cache
54
PHP
46
Accessibility
Litespeed Cache
89
PHP
89
Security
Litespeed Cache
71
PHP
65
SEO
Litespeed Cache
91
PHP
91
Composite
Litespeed Cache
78
PHP
74

Litespeed Cache outperforms PHP in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 74). PHP 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 PHP

Choose PHP 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 27 audited Litespeed Cache sites and 1012 audited PHP 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 PHP?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (54 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, Litespeed Cache or PHP?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on security analysis (71 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Litespeed Cache or PHP?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Litespeed Cache (89 vs 89). 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 PHP?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 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 PHP?
PHP sites show lower Time to First Byte (409 ms vs 988 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 PHP 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