Skip to content

Material UI vs Microsoft

Based on 25 and 2465 real audits

View Material UI details | View Microsoft details
MetricMaterial UIMicrosoftWinner
Performance3539Microsoft
Accessibility9189Material UI
Best Practices8886Material UI
SEO8889Microsoft
Security6667Microsoft
TTFB374ms329msMicrosoft
Composite7473Material UI
Performance
Material UI
35
Microsoft
39
Accessibility
Material UI
91
Microsoft
89
Security
Material UI
66
Microsoft
67
SEO
Material UI
88
Microsoft
89
Composite
Material UI
74
Microsoft
73

Microsoft outperforms Material UI in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 74). Material UI leads in accessibility, best practices, composite score.

When to choose Material UI

Choose Material UI when your primary concern is accessibility and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Microsoft

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 25 audited Material UI sites and 2465 audited Microsoft 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, Material UI or Microsoft?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Microsoft sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (39 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, Material UI or Microsoft?
Microsoft sites score higher on security analysis (67 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Material UI or Microsoft?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Material UI (91 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, Material UI or Microsoft?
Microsoft sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (89 vs 88 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), Material UI or Microsoft?
Microsoft sites show lower Time to First Byte (329 ms vs 374 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 Material UI or Microsoft for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Microsoft scores higher on overall composite score while Material UI 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