| Metric | Polyfill | Varnish | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 53 | 44 | Polyfill |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | Varnish |
| Best Practices | 96 | 89 | Polyfill |
| SEO | 81 | 91 | Varnish |
| Security | 69 | 65 | Polyfill |
| TTFB | 46ms | 202ms | Polyfill |
| Composite | 78 | 74 | Polyfill |
Polyfill outperforms Varnish in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 74). Varnish leads in accessibility, SEO.
Choose Polyfill when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Varnish when your primary concern is SEO and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 7 audited Polyfill sites and 441 audited Varnish 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