Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs Integral Ad Science

Based on 594 and 34 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View Integral Ad Science details
MetricDoubleClick FloodlightIntegral Ad ScienceWinner
Performance3235Integral Ad Science
Accessibility8788Integral Ad Science
Best Practices8183Integral Ad Science
SEO9193Integral Ad Science
Security6465Integral Ad Science
TTFB340ms274msIntegral Ad Science
Composite7272Tie
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
Integral Ad Science
35
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
Integral Ad Science
88
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
Integral Ad Science
65
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
Integral Ad Science
93
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
Integral Ad Science
72

Integral Ad Science outperforms DoubleClick Floodlight in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 72). DoubleClick Floodlight leads in no categories.

When to choose DoubleClick Floodlight

DoubleClick Floodlight doesn't clearly lead Integral Ad Science in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose Integral Ad Science

Choose Integral Ad Science when your primary concern is server response time and performance. 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 34 audited Integral Ad Science 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, DoubleClick Floodlight or Integral Ad Science?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Integral Ad Science sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (35 vs 32 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or Integral Ad Science?
Integral Ad Science sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or Integral Ad Science?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Integral Ad Science (88 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 Integral Ad Science?
Integral Ad Science sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (93 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), DoubleClick Floodlight or Integral Ad Science?
Integral Ad Science sites show lower Time to First Byte (274 ms vs 340 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 Integral Ad Science for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Integral Ad Science 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