Based on 3 and 3 real audits
| Metric | Optimization Detective | Performant Translations | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 46 | 46 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 93 | 93 | Tie |
| Best Practices | 87 | 87 | Tie |
| SEO | 94 | 94 | Tie |
| Security | 73 | 73 | Tie |
| TTFB | 3020ms | 3020ms | Tie |
| Composite | 78 | 78 | Tie |
Optimization Detective and Performant Translations are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Optimization Detective has a composite score of 78 while Performant Translations scores 78.
Optimization Detective doesn't clearly lead Performant Translations in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Performant Translations doesn't clearly lead Optimization Detective in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 3 audited Optimization Detective sites and 3 audited Performant Translations 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