Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs Rubicon Project

Based on 594 and 28 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View Rubicon Project details
MetricDoubleClick FloodlightRubicon ProjectWinner
Performance3230DoubleClick Floodlight
Accessibility8785DoubleClick Floodlight
Best Practices8177DoubleClick Floodlight
SEO9191Tie
Security6464Tie
TTFB340ms347msDoubleClick Floodlight
Composite7271DoubleClick Floodlight
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
Rubicon Project
30
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
Rubicon Project
85
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
Rubicon Project
64
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
Rubicon Project
91
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
Rubicon Project
71

DoubleClick Floodlight outperforms Rubicon Project in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 71). Rubicon Project leads in no categories.

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 Rubicon Project

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 594 audited DoubleClick Floodlight sites and 28 audited Rubicon Project 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 Rubicon Project?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (32 vs 30 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or Rubicon Project?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on security analysis (64 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or Rubicon Project?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor DoubleClick Floodlight (87 vs 85). 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 Rubicon Project?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 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 Rubicon Project?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites show lower Time to First Byte (340 ms vs 347 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 Rubicon Project for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. DoubleClick Floodlight 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