| Metric | Next.js | Prismic | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 38 | 40 | Prismic |
| Accessibility | 90 | 84 | Next.js |
| Best Practices | 88 | 92 | Prismic |
| SEO | 94 | 98 | Prismic |
| Security | 67 | 65 | Next.js |
| TTFB | 289ms | 271ms | Prismic |
| Composite | 74 | 72 | Next.js |
Prismic outperforms Next.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 74). Next.js leads in accessibility, security, composite score.
Choose Next.js when your primary concern is accessibility and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Prismic when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 597 audited Next.js sites and 8 audited Prismic 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