Skip to content

PHP vs web-vitals

Based on 1030 and 151 real audits

View PHP details | View web-vitals details
MetricPHPweb-vitalsWinner
Performance4636PHP
Accessibility8989Tie
Best Practices8884PHP
SEO9190PHP
Security6565Tie
TTFB421ms415msweb-vitals
Composite7472PHP
Performance
PHP
46
web-vitals
36
Accessibility
PHP
89
web-vitals
89
Security
PHP
65
web-vitals
65
SEO
PHP
91
web-vitals
90
Composite
PHP
74
web-vitals
72

PHP outperforms web-vitals in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). web-vitals leads in TTFB.

When to choose PHP

Choose PHP when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose web-vitals

Choose web-vitals when your primary concern is server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1030 audited PHP sites and 151 audited web-vitals 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, PHP or web-vitals?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, PHP sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 36 on average).
Which has better security, PHP or web-vitals?
PHP sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, PHP or web-vitals?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor PHP (89 vs 89). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, PHP or web-vitals?
PHP sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), PHP or web-vitals?
web-vitals sites show lower Time to First Byte (415 ms vs 421 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose PHP or web-vitals for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. PHP scores higher on overall composite score while PHP may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback