Based on 4 and 175 real audits
| Metric | Magento | Underscore.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 23 | 38 | Underscore.js |
| Accessibility | 86 | 87 | Underscore.js |
| Best Practices | 85 | 83 | Magento |
| SEO | 90 | 90 | Tie |
| Security | 69 | 64 | Magento |
| TTFB | 138ms | 417ms | Magento |
| Composite | 71 | 72 | Underscore.js |
Magento and Underscore.js are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Magento has a composite score of 71 while Underscore.js scores 72.
Choose Magento when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Underscore.js when your primary concern is performance and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 4 audited Magento sites and 175 audited Underscore.js 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