13 interactive comparisons
Compare before you commit
Web servers, hosting, Linux distributions, language model options, CMS, operating systems, messengers, password managers and browsers, scored on named criteria. Weight what matters to you and the ranking follows.
Interactive comparison
MFA methods compared
Six common second factors scored for individuals and small teams, from 1 to 5, where higher is always better.
Best everyday choice for anyone whose services offer them.
- Bound to the real domain, nothing to type or relay
- Fast sign-in with fingerprint, face or PIN
- Recovered through the account that syncs them
- Not yet offered by every service
- Only as safe as the account that syncs them
The dependable default where passkeys are not available.
- Offered by almost every service
- Works offline and is not tied to the phone number
- Codes can be relayed by a phishing page
- A lost phone means recovery codes or an app backup
Best for administrators, payment approvers and other likely targets.
- Device-bound, the key cannot be copied off
- Highest assurance of all methods here
- Works without a phone
- Has to be bought and carried
- Losing the only key can mean a slow recovery
Acceptable inside an identity platform, but only with number matching on.
- Quick to approve
- Number matching blunts push bombing
- Often shows context such as app and location
- Still open to real-time phishing
- Usually limited to one vendor’s ecosystem
A fallback for services that offer nothing stronger.
- Works on any phone
- Very widely offered
- Exposed to SIM swap and network interception
- Codes are easy to phish
Better than nothing, but replace it wherever a service allows.
- No extra app or device
- Familiar to every user
- The mailbox is often the weakest account
- NIST rules it out for out-of-band authentication
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Passkeys (synced) | Authenticator app (TOTP) | Hardware security key (FIDO2) | Push approval with number matching | SMS or voice codes | Email codes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phishing resistance | ||||||
| SIM swap resistance | ||||||
| Ease of use | ||||||
| Easy recovery | ||||||
| Low cost | ||||||
| Support across services |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Web servers compared
Five web server options scored from 1 to 5 for a small, self-managed site; higher is always better.
Best for small teams that want HTTPS and renewal handled without any extra work.
- Automatic HTTPS and redirect by default
- Written in a memory-safe language
- Short, readable configuration
- Plugins need a custom build
- Distribution packages can lag behind upstream
Best for admins who want a lean, well-documented server and are happy to add an ACME client.
- Event-driven, copes well with slow clients
- In every major distribution with backported fixes
- No per-directory overrides
- Shows its version until you set server_tokens off
- Subtle pitfalls with alias and add_header inheritance
Best where a hosting control panel provides it as an Apache replacement.
- Reads Apache configuration and most .htaccess directives
- Strong under heavy load and floods
- Closed source, paid licence
- Updates only through the vendor channel
Best for applications that rely on .htaccess rules and for teams that know Apache well.
- Very flexible, huge module ecosystem
- In every major distribution with backported fixes
- AllowOverride None by default
- .htaccess lets web content change server behaviour
- Talkative defaults: ServerTokens Full, TRACE on
- Prefork MPM is easier to tie up
Best for self-managed WordPress hosts that want LiteSpeed caching without a licence.
- Event-driven with per-client throttling
- Free and open source
- .htaccess limited to rewrite rules, access rules ignored
- Web admin console must be locked down
- Updates only from the vendor repository
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Caddy | Nginx | LiteSpeed Enterprise | Apache HTTP Server | OpenLiteSpeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secure defaults | |||||
| Automatic HTTPS | |||||
| Low configuration risk | |||||
| Small attack surface | |||||
| Patch delivery | |||||
| Resilience under load |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Linux server distributions compared
Four distribution families scored from 1 to 5 as long-running servers for small teams; higher is always better.
Best for teams that want a stable, community-run server system with a clear advisory process.
- Mature security team and advisories
- AppArmor enabled by default
- Lean minimal install
- Regular support only about three years, then LTS
- unattended-upgrades may need enabling
Best for teams that want long support, wide documentation and updates on by default.
- Five years standard, longer with Ubuntu Pro
- unattended-upgrades on by default
- Widely documented
- Long-term universe coverage needs Ubuntu Pro
- Larger default install than Debian
Best for admins who want ten years of free support and SELinux enforcing by default.
- Ten-year lifecycle per major version
- SELinux enforcing with broad policy
- Compatible with RHEL documentation
- SELinux has a steep learning curve
- Larger images than Alpine or slim Debian
Best as a small container base image that is rebuilt often.
- Very small footprint
- Fast release rhythm suits containers
- About two years of support for main
- No MAC system enabled by default
- musl can cause compatibility surprises
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Debian stable | Ubuntu LTS | Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux | Alpine Linux |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long support period | ||||
| Clear security updates | ||||
| Mandatory access control | ||||
| Small footprint | ||||
| Easy automatic updates | ||||
| Container base fit |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
AI deployment types compared for privacy
Six ways to use language models, scored by how well each protects business data by default and how much effort it takes; higher is always better.
Organisations already on a large cloud that need a chosen region and existing contracts.
- Region choice under a cloud contract you already have
- Works with existing identity, logging and network controls
- Needs cloud know-how to set up well
- Not every model or feature exists in every region
Teams that want a chat interface for internal and confidential work under one contract.
- Central administration and single sign-on are typical
- Business terms with a processing agreement are common
- Audit logs and retention settings vary by plan
- Regional storage is often limited to larger plans
Sensitive data or high volume, for teams that can run and secure a server.
- Prompts never leave your network
- Retention and logging are entirely your decision
- You patch, secure and monitor everything yourself
- Needs hardware, and quality may trail the largest hosted models
Developers building AI features into their own software.
- Developer terms often exclude training by default
- You decide what is sent and what you store
- You build the interface, access control and logging
- Provider side logs for abuse monitoring may still apply
Individuals who want stronger models for work that contains nothing sensitive.
- Higher limits and more features
- Personal privacy settings are usually available
- Data terms are often the same as the free tier
- Nothing an employer can manage or audit
Public information and personal experiments, never customer or personal data.
- No setup, works in any browser
- Often gives access to capable models
- Training on conversations is often on unless the user changes it
- No contract and no central control
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Models through a cloud platform | Business or enterprise plans | Self-hosted open-weight models | Direct API access | Paid consumer plans | Free consumer chat apps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No training by default | ||||||
| Retention control | ||||||
| Admin control and audit logs | ||||||
| Data residency choice | ||||||
| Contractual clarity | ||||||
| Quality for little effort |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Local LLM runners compared
Four runners for open-weight models, scored for a small team that wants private inference without opening a new door into the network; higher is always better.
Developers and small teams who want the quickest route to a local model.
- Very easy installation and model management
- Binds to localhost by default
- MIT licence
- No authentication described for the local API
- Official container image listens on all interfaces
Technical users who want fine control and built-in API keys on modest hardware.
- API keys and optional TLS built in
- Binds to localhost by default
- Runs on CPUs and many GPU types
- Permissive browser origin settings by default
- Very frequent releases to track
Individuals who prefer a graphical app on a laptop or workstation.
- Graphical interface, no command line needed
- Network serving is opt-in, with a warning
- Desktop app is not open source
- Built mainly for one user on a desktop, not for shared serving
Teams serving many users on data centre GPUs, with someone to design the network.
- Highest throughput for many parallel users
- Detailed official security guide
- Listens on all interfaces unless told otherwise
- API key covers only part of the endpoints
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Ollama | llama.cpp (llama-server) | LM Studio | vLLM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ease of setup | ||||
| Safe network defaults | ||||
| Authentication options | ||||
| Multi-user serving | ||||
| Ease of staying updated | ||||
| Open licence |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
CMS platforms compared by security
Editorial scores from 1 to 5 for teams that run their own website, where higher is always better.
Best for publishers and newsletters that need no plugins.
- No server-side plugin layer
- Logins from new devices confirmed by email code
- Login attempts rate limited by default
- Staff users can add scripts, so all must be trusted
- Only the previous major gets LTS fixes
- Self-hosted updates must be started by hand
Best for sites that change rarely and teams comfortable with git.
- No database or login on the live server
- Little to patch at runtime
- Easy to host almost anywhere
- Risk moves to the build pipeline and accounts
- Forms and comments need third party services
- Editors may need a headless CMS
Best for mid-sized sites that want MFA and clear support dates without many add-ons.
- MFA built into the core
- Published bugfix and security end dates
- One click core updates
- Extension quality varies
- Smaller community than WordPress
- Support dates marked as tentative
Best for organisations with agency support that value long, predictable LTS windows.
- LTS with about three years of free fixes
- MFA in the backend core
- Security team covers core and extensions
- Steep learning curve
- Updates usually need a developer
- Extended support after LTS is paid
Best for complex sites with a developer or agency and a deployment pipeline.
- Dedicated security team and monthly release windows
- Advisory coverage shown on each contributed project
- Published release schedule
- Composer based updates need technical skills
- MFA only through contributed modules
- Major upgrades take planning
Best for small teams that want a familiar editor and will keep plugins to a minimum.
- Automatic minor core updates by default
- Large, experienced security team
- Automatic updates per plugin and theme since 5.5
- Only the latest version is officially supported
- Huge plugin ecosystem of uneven quality
- No MFA or login limits in core
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Ghost | Static site generator | Joomla | TYPO3 | Drupal | WordPress |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core security process | ||||||
| Low extension risk | ||||||
| Update automation | ||||||
| Long-term support | ||||||
| Small attack surface | ||||||
| Admin protection | ||||||
| Low maintenance effort |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Desktop operating systems compared
Scores for security and day-to-day practicality on an ordinary office laptop, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong).
Best for teams that need the widest software choice and central management.
- Deepest management tooling: Intune, Group Policy, Windows LAPS
- Defender, SmartScreen and device encryption built in
- Runs almost all business software
- Most targeted desktop platform
- First account is an administrator
- Feature versions must be updated about every two years
Best for people who want strong encryption and good defaults with little upkeep.
- Always-on hardware encryption, FileVault on top
- Gatekeeper, XProtect and System Integrity Protection by default
- Hardware and software updates from one vendor
- No published support period
- Intel Macs stop at macOS Tahoe
- Central management needs an MDM service
Best for browser-based work and staff who should never need admin rights.
- Verified boot and a read-only system
- Automatic updates for ten years from platform release
- Users never hold system admin rights
- No native Windows or Mac software
- Central management needs a paid upgrade
- Update end date depends on the model, not the purchase
Best for technical users who keep the system updated and stick to official repositories.
- Signed repositories update system and apps together
- AppArmor or SELinux confine programs
- Rarely targeted by desktop malware
- Encryption must be chosen at install time
- Few management tools suited to small teams
- Copied scripts and extra repositories bypass protection
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Windows 11 | macOS | ChromeOS | Desktop Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Update support | ||||
| Secure defaults | ||||
| Disk encryption | ||||
| App control | ||||
| Small-team management | ||||
| Low malware exposure | ||||
| Software compatibility |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Phones compared by security
Four typical phone choices scored from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong); the budget item stands for phones with short or unclear update promises.
Best for people who want direct updates and the strictest app vetting with little effort.
- Updates reach every supported model on the same day
- Lockdown Mode for high-risk users
- Secure Enclave protects passcode and keys
- No published update period per model
- iCloud backups use Apple-held keys unless Advanced Data Protection is on
- Few device and app source choices
Best for Android users who want seven years of direct updates and new protections first.
- Seven years of OS and security updates from Pixel 8
- Advanced Protection and Titan M2 chip
- Updates come straight from Google
- Sideloading means users can be talked into risky installs
- Support period counts from the US launch, not your purchase
- Smaller range of models
Best for people who want a wide choice of hardware with long update promises.
- Seven years of security updates for recent Galaxy S series
- Knox Vault on flagships
- Wide range of models and features
- Update timing varies by model, carrier and market
- Second app store and extra preinstalled apps widen the surface
- Promises differ between flagship and cheaper series
Fits short-term or low-risk use, unless the maker publishes a clear update period.
- Wide choice at a low entry level
- Same Android sandbox and Google Play Protect
- Adequate for low-risk use while updates last
- Short or unclear update periods
- Weaker or missing secure hardware
- Preinstalled third-party apps and stores
All scores in a table
| Criterion | iPhone | Google Pixel | Samsung Galaxy flagship | Budget Android, smaller brands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Updates | ||||
| App vetting | ||||
| Permission controls | ||||
| High-risk protection | ||||
| Encryption and backups | ||||
| Hardware security | ||||
| Choice |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Secure messengers compared
Five messengers scored from 1 to 5 on what protects the content and context of your conversations; higher is always better.
Best for private conversations where you want strong defaults and minimal data kept.
- End-to-end encryption everywhere by default
- Keeps very little metadata
- Apps and server are open source
- Phone number required to register
- Some contacts may not use it yet
Best for people and teams who do not want to link a phone number or email address.
- No phone number or email needed
- Open-source apps, Swiss servers
- Clear verification levels
- Paid app
- Threema Safe does not back up chats
- Fewer contacts to talk to
Best when everyone you need to reach already uses it.
- Signal protocol encryption by default
- Optional end-to-end encrypted backups
- Very easy to reach contacts
- Owned by Meta, collects more metadata
- Closed source
- Backup encryption is opt-in
Best for households and teams that use Apple devices only.
- End-to-end encrypted between Apple devices
- Contact Key Verification
- Built in, nothing to install
- Apple devices only, SMS or RCS fallback
- iCloud Backup holds the key without Advanced Data Protection
- Closed source
Best for public channels and large communities, not for confidential chats.
- Feature-rich groups and channels
- Open-source apps
- Secret chats available for one-to-one
- Not end-to-end encrypted by default
- Groups never end-to-end encrypted
- Chats stored on Telegram's servers
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Signal | Threema | iMessage | Telegram | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encryption by default | |||||
| Metadata restraint | |||||
| Sign-up privacy | |||||
| Backup protection | |||||
| Transparency | |||||
| Contact verification | |||||
| Reach |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Password managers compared
Five password managers scored from 1 to 5 on transparency, passkeys, sharing, platforms, recovery and control; higher is always better.
Best for people and teams who want open code, every platform and the option to self-host.
- Open source with published audits
- Self-hosting possible
- Free tier
- Emergency access needs premium
- Self-hosting makes patching and backups your job
Best for families and small teams who value polish and administration.
- Secret Key protects against password guessing on stolen data
- Strong sharing and admin features
- Publishes audit results
- Closed source
- Paid only
- No self-hosting
Best for people who want encrypted metadata and already use Proton services.
- Encrypts usernames and web addresses too
- Open source and audited
- Free tier
- Cloud only, no self-hosting
- Tied to your Proton account
Best for individuals who want no cloud account at all and can manage their own sync.
- Local file, no vendor account
- Open source, independently reviewed
- Free
- No official mobile app
- No recovery if the password is lost
- Sharing only by sharing a file
Best for households that use Apple devices only.
- Built in and free
- End-to-end encrypted iCloud Keychain
- Passkeys and verification codes
- Closed source
- Apple devices and Windows only
- Limited team features
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Bitwarden | 1Password | Proton Pass | KeePassXC | Apple Passwords |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open code and audits | |||||
| Passkey support | |||||
| Sharing for teams | |||||
| Platform coverage | |||||
| Recovery and emergency access | |||||
| Control over your data |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Browsers compared for security
Five desktop browsers scored from 1 to 5 on updates, isolation, privacy defaults, blocking, warnings, vendor data and management; higher is always better.
Best for people who want Chromium compatibility with strong privacy defaults.
- Shields block trackers and ads by default
- Hosts four Manifest V2 blockers
- Chromium site isolation
- Extra features such as a wallet add code
- Fewer management tools of its own
Best for people who want strong privacy defaults and the most capable content blockers.
- Total Cookie Protection by default
- Keeps Manifest V2 and blocking requests
- Extended Support Release for businesses
- Usage data collection on by default
- Fewer management tools than Chrome or Edge
Best for organisations that want fast updates and deep central management.
- Fast release and security update cycle
- Strict site isolation
- Extensive enterprise policies
- Weak tracking protection by default
- Manifest V2 fully removed
- Close ties to Google accounts and advertising
Best for Windows organisations that manage devices with Microsoft tools.
- Chromium security engineering
- Balanced tracking prevention by default
- Group Policy and Intune management
- Many online features tied to Microsoft services
- Manifest V2 phase-out still under way
Best for people who use Apple devices only and want good defaults without effort.
- Intelligent Tracking Prevention on by default
- Efficient and built in
- Extensions reviewed through the App Store
- Updates tied to system updates
- Smaller extension choice
- Apple devices only
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Brave | Firefox | Chrome | Edge | Safari |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Update speed | |||||
| Isolation | |||||
| Tracking protection by default | |||||
| Content blocking | |||||
| Malicious site warnings | |||||
| Vendor data restraint | |||||
| Enterprise management |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
Interactive comparison
Password hashing algorithms compared
Scores from 1 to 5 for storing user passwords in a web application, from the perspective of a small development team.
Best for new systems on any stack with a maintained Argon2 library.
- Memory-hard, strongest resistance to GPU cracking
- First choice in OWASP guidance
- Clear published parameter sets
- Not approved for FIPS-140 environments
- May need an extra package or a PHP build with Argon2 support
Best where FIPS-140 compliance is mandatory.
- Approved by NIST, with FIPS-140 validated implementations
- Available in nearly every standard library
- Not memory-hard, the weakest of the four against graphics cards
- Needs very high iteration counts that older library defaults do not reach
Best where Argon2id is unavailable but a scrypt implementation is.
- Memory-hard and studied since 2009
- Included in Python’s hashlib and the Node.js crypto module
- N, r and p are easy to misjudge
- Some libraries cap memory below the recommended setting
- Not approved for FIPS-140 environments
Best kept where it already runs, with a cost of 10 or more and a planned migration.
- Available in almost every language and framework
- Single cost parameter, hard to misconfigure
- Uses only the first 72 bytes of input
- Little memory per guess, weaker against modern hardware
- OWASP lists it for legacy systems only
All scores in a table
| Criterion | Argon2id | PBKDF2 | scrypt | bcrypt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistance to GPU cracking | ||||
| Standing in current guidance | ||||
| Library and platform support | ||||
| Ease of correct tuning | ||||
| FIPS-140 fit | ||||
| No input length pitfalls |
Editorial assessment as of 31 October 2026. Scores from 1 to 5, higher is better. Your weights only change the order. Read the full comparison
How we score
Every comparison names five to seven criteria and explains each one. Each option gets 1 to 5 points per criterion, and higher is always better, so criteria such as cost or effort are phrased positively (“Low maintenance effort”). The scores are an editorial assessment on the date shown, based on official documentation, release notes, security advisories and the track record of each project. Your weights stay in this page and only change the order.
Scores compress nuance. Read the full comparison before you decide, because the right choice depends on your skills, your threat model and the systems you already run.