Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs mobile-detect.js

Based on 648 and 4 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View mobile-detect.js details
MetricDoubleClick Floodlightmobile-detect.jsWinner
Performance3340mobile-detect.js
Accessibility8786DoubleClick Floodlight
Best Practices8277DoubleClick Floodlight
SEO9183DoubleClick Floodlight
Security6576mobile-detect.js
TTFB379ms97msmobile-detect.js
Composite7276mobile-detect.js
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
33
mobile-detect.js
40
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
mobile-detect.js
86
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
65
mobile-detect.js
76
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
mobile-detect.js
83
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
mobile-detect.js
76

mobile-detect.js outperforms DoubleClick Floodlight in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 72). DoubleClick Floodlight leads in accessibility, best practices, SEO.

When to choose DoubleClick Floodlight

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

When to choose mobile-detect.js

Choose mobile-detect.js when your primary concern is server response time and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 648 audited DoubleClick Floodlight sites and 4 audited mobile-detect.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 →

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 mobile-detect.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, mobile-detect.js sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (40 vs 33 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or mobile-detect.js?
mobile-detect.js sites score higher on security analysis (76 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or mobile-detect.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 mobile-detect.js?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 83 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 mobile-detect.js?
mobile-detect.js sites show lower Time to First Byte (97 ms vs 379 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 mobile-detect.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. mobile-detect.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