| Metric | Open Graph | PDF.js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 45 | 20 | Open Graph |
| Accessibility | 89 | 91 | PDF.js |
| Best Practices | 87 | 78 | Open Graph |
| SEO | 92 | 92 | Tie |
| Security | 66 | 65 | Open Graph |
| TTFB | 365ms | 275ms | PDF.js |
| Composite | 74 | 71 | Open Graph |
Open Graph outperforms PDF.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 71). PDF.js leads in accessibility, TTFB.
Choose Open Graph when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose PDF.js when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 3415 audited Open Graph sites and 3 audited PDF.js 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