Skip to content

Umami vs Webpack

Based on 42 and 1224 real audits

View Umami details | View Webpack details
MetricUmamiWebpackWinner
Performance6844Umami
Accessibility9390Umami
Best Practices9689Umami
SEO9693Umami
Security7870Umami
TTFB476ms402msWebpack
Composite8376Umami
Performance
Umami
68
Webpack
44
Accessibility
Umami
93
Webpack
90
Security
Umami
78
Webpack
70
SEO
Umami
96
Webpack
93
Composite
Umami
83
Webpack
76

Umami outperforms Webpack in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 76). Webpack leads in TTFB.

When to choose Umami

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

When to choose Webpack

Choose Webpack 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 42 audited Umami sites and 1224 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Umami or Webpack?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (68 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Umami or Webpack?
Umami sites score higher on security analysis (78 vs 70 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Umami or Webpack?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Umami (93 vs 90). 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, Umami or Webpack?
Umami sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (96 vs 93 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), Umami or Webpack?
Webpack sites show lower Time to First Byte (402 ms vs 476 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 Umami or Webpack for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Umami scores higher on overall composite score while Umami 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