Based on 2 and 948 real audits
| Metric | Network for Good | PHP | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 43 | 46 | PHP |
| Accessibility | 69 | 89 | PHP |
| Best Practices | 96 | 87 | Network for Good |
| SEO | 96 | 91 | Network for Good |
| Security | 64 | 64 | Tie |
| TTFB | 228ms | 381ms | Network for Good |
| Composite | 70 | 74 | PHP |
Network for Good and PHP are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Network for Good has a composite score of 70 while PHP scores 74.
Choose Network for Good when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose PHP when your primary concern is accessibility and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited Network for Good sites and 948 audited PHP 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