| Metric | Masonry | Spring | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 47 | 66 | Spring |
| Accessibility | 85 | 80 | Masonry |
| Best Practices | 88 | 79 | Masonry |
| SEO | 90 | 68 | Masonry |
| Security | 65 | 62 | Masonry |
| TTFB | 498ms | 527ms | Masonry |
| Composite | 74 | 72 | Masonry |
Masonry outperforms Spring in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). Spring leads in performance.
Choose Masonry when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Spring when your primary concern is performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 110 audited Masonry sites and 2 audited Spring 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