Skip to content

shadcn/ui vs Umami

Based on 148 and 42 real audits

View shadcn/ui details | View Umami details
Metricshadcn/uiUmamiWinner
Performance5968Umami
Accessibility9393Tie
Best Practices9396Umami
SEO9796shadcn/ui
Security7978shadcn/ui
TTFB645ms476msUmami
Composite8283Umami
Performance
shadcn/ui
59
Umami
68
Accessibility
shadcn/ui
93
Umami
93
Security
shadcn/ui
79
Umami
78
SEO
shadcn/ui
97
Umami
96
Composite
shadcn/ui
82
Umami
83

Umami outperforms shadcn/ui in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 82). shadcn/ui leads in SEO, security.

When to choose shadcn/ui

Choose shadcn/ui when your primary concern is SEO and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Umami

Choose Umami when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 148 audited shadcn/ui sites and 42 audited Umami 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, shadcn/ui or Umami?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (68 vs 59 on average).
Which has better security, shadcn/ui or Umami?
shadcn/ui sites score higher on security analysis (79 vs 78 on average).
Which has better accessibility, shadcn/ui or Umami?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor shadcn/ui (93 vs 93). 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, shadcn/ui or Umami?
shadcn/ui sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (97 vs 96 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), shadcn/ui or Umami?
Umami sites show lower Time to First Byte (476 ms vs 645 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 shadcn/ui or Umami for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Umami scores higher on overall composite score while shadcn/ui 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