Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs Lozad.js

Based on 594 and 12 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View Lozad.js details
MetricDoubleClick FloodlightLozad.jsWinner
Performance3240Lozad.js
Accessibility8786DoubleClick Floodlight
Best Practices8186Lozad.js
SEO9187DoubleClick Floodlight
Security6464Tie
TTFB340ms441msDoubleClick Floodlight
Composite7271DoubleClick Floodlight
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
Lozad.js
40
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
Lozad.js
86
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
Lozad.js
64
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
Lozad.js
87
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
Lozad.js
71

DoubleClick Floodlight outperforms Lozad.js in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 71). Lozad.js leads in performance, best practices.

When to choose DoubleClick Floodlight

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

When to choose Lozad.js

Choose Lozad.js when your primary concern is performance 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 594 audited DoubleClick Floodlight sites and 12 audited Lozad.js 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 Lozad.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Lozad.js sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (40 vs 32 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or Lozad.js?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on security analysis (64 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or Lozad.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor DoubleClick Floodlight (87 vs 86). 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 Lozad.js?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 87 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 Lozad.js?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites show lower Time to First Byte (340 ms vs 441 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 Lozad.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Lozad.js 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