Browser Caching with .htaccess vs Facebook
A side by side look at reach, regional footprint and where each widgets technology actually wins, built from live detections across millions of websites.
The short version. Facebook has roughly 34477x more sites overall (487 vs 16.8M). But the split flips by market: Browser Caching with .htaccess over-indexes in Estonia, Russian Federation and Romania, while Facebook runs the majority in Japan, Viet Nam and Turkey. Which one fits depends far more on your market than on raw totals.
Head to head
Where each technology comes out ahead, by dimension
Who leads each market
Share of the two technologies per country. The marker is Browser Caching with .htaccess's 0% global share, so bars past it lean Browser Caching with .htaccess.
Where to build
Building an app, theme or agency around one technology? This is where its sites actually concentrate.
Build for Browser Caching with .htaccess
Build for Facebook
United States is the most one-sided market in this comparison: 1.4M Facebook sites to 48 on Browser Caching with .htaccess, a 100% split. For a new project there, the ecosystem, plugins and talent all point one way.
Which should you choose
A quick read based on reach and regional traction
Choose Browser Caching with .htaccess if
- ✓You sell into Estonia, Russian Federation and Romania, where it has real traction.
- ✓You value where it concentrates its footprint over sheer volume.
- ✓Your team is already invested in the Browser Caching with .htaccess stack.
Choose Facebook if
- ✓You operate in Japan, Viet Nam and Turkey, its heartland.
- ✓You want the larger install base (16.8M sites) and a bigger ecosystem.
- ✓Your team is already invested in the Facebook stack.
Export the websites behind either technology
Get the sites using Browser Caching with .htaccess or Facebook with emails, socials and country filters.