| Metric | mod_perl | mod_wsgi | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 99 | 73 | mod_perl |
| Accessibility | 76 | 89 | mod_wsgi |
| Best Practices | 100 | 98 | mod_perl |
| SEO | 82 | 91 | mod_wsgi |
| Security | 67 | 66 | mod_perl |
| TTFB | 208ms | 211ms | mod_perl |
| Composite | 76 | 75 | mod_perl |
mod_perl outperforms mod_wsgi in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 75). mod_wsgi leads in accessibility, SEO.
Choose mod_perl when your primary concern is performance and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose mod_wsgi when your primary concern is accessibility and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited mod_perl sites and 2 audited mod_wsgi 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