| Metric | mod_wsgi | Python | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 73 | 50 | mod_wsgi |
| Accessibility | 89 | 91 | Python |
| Best Practices | 98 | 88 | mod_wsgi |
| SEO | 91 | 93 | Python |
| Security | 66 | 67 | Python |
| TTFB | 211ms | 379ms | mod_wsgi |
| Composite | 75 | 75 | Tie |
mod_wsgi and Python are closely matched, each leading in different categories. mod_wsgi has a composite score of 75 while Python scores 75.
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 accessibility and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited mod_wsgi sites and 96 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