Skip to content

Campaign Monitor vs DoubleClick Floodlight

Based on 1 and 596 real audits

View Campaign Monitor details | View DoubleClick Floodlight details
MetricCampaign MonitorDoubleClick FloodlightWinner
Performance5132Campaign Monitor
Accessibility8987Campaign Monitor
Best Practices7781DoubleClick Floodlight
SEO10091Campaign Monitor
Security6464Tie
TTFB994ms339msDoubleClick Floodlight
Composite7472Campaign Monitor
Performance
Campaign Monitor
51
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
Accessibility
Campaign Monitor
89
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
Security
Campaign Monitor
64
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
SEO
Campaign Monitor
100
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
Composite
Campaign Monitor
74
DoubleClick Floodlight
72

Campaign Monitor outperforms DoubleClick Floodlight in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). DoubleClick Floodlight leads in best practices, TTFB.

When to choose Campaign Monitor

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

When to choose DoubleClick Floodlight

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Campaign Monitor sites and 596 audited DoubleClick Floodlight 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Campaign Monitor sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (51 vs 32 on average).
Which has better security, Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight?
Campaign Monitor sites score higher on security analysis (64 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Campaign Monitor (89 vs 87). 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, Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight?
Campaign Monitor sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 91 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), Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites show lower Time to First Byte (339 ms vs 994 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 Campaign Monitor or DoubleClick Floodlight for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Campaign Monitor scores higher on overall composite score while Campaign Monitor 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