| Metric | mod_wsgi | Python | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 73 | 51 | mod_wsgi |
| Accessibility | 89 | 90 | Python |
| Best Practices | 98 | 88 | mod_wsgi |
| SEO | 91 | 93 | Python |
| Security | 66 | 68 | Python |
| TTFB | 211ms | 395ms | mod_wsgi |
| Composite | 75 | 76 | Python |
Python outperforms mod_wsgi in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 75). mod_wsgi leads in performance, best practices, TTFB.
Choose mod_wsgi when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Python when your primary concern is SEO and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited mod_wsgi sites and 107 audited Python 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