| Metric | Sift | Webpack | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 25 | 38 | Webpack |
| Accessibility | 88 | 89 | Webpack |
| Best Practices | 87 | 87 | Tie |
| SEO | 92 | 92 | Tie |
| Security | 65 | 66 | Webpack |
| TTFB | 314ms | 305ms | Webpack |
| Composite | 72 | 73 | Webpack |
Webpack outperforms Sift in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Sift leads in no categories.
Sift doesn't clearly lead Webpack in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose Webpack when your primary concern is performance and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 7 audited Sift sites and 956 audited Webpack 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