Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs EX.CO

Based on 594 and 9 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View EX.CO details
MetricDoubleClick FloodlightEX.COWinner
Performance3245EX.CO
Accessibility8791EX.CO
Best Practices8176DoubleClick Floodlight
SEO9189DoubleClick Floodlight
Security6470EX.CO
TTFB340ms462msDoubleClick Floodlight
Composite7272Tie
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
EX.CO
45
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
EX.CO
91
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
EX.CO
70
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
EX.CO
89
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
EX.CO
72

DoubleClick Floodlight and EX.CO are closely matched, each leading in different categories. DoubleClick Floodlight has a composite score of 72 while EX.CO scores 72.

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.

When to choose EX.CO

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 594 audited DoubleClick Floodlight sites and 9 audited EX.CO 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, DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, EX.CO sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 32 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO?
EX.CO sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor EX.CO (91 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, DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 89 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), DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites show lower Time to First Byte (340 ms vs 462 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 DoubleClick Floodlight or EX.CO for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. EX.CO scores higher on overall composite score while DoubleClick Floodlight 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