Skip to content

DoubleClick Floodlight vs SWFObject

Based on 594 and 10 real audits

View DoubleClick Floodlight details | View SWFObject details
MetricDoubleClick FloodlightSWFObjectWinner
Performance3240SWFObject
Accessibility8772DoubleClick Floodlight
Best Practices8179DoubleClick Floodlight
SEO9188DoubleClick Floodlight
Security6460DoubleClick Floodlight
TTFB340ms508msDoubleClick Floodlight
Composite7269DoubleClick Floodlight
Performance
DoubleClick Floodlight
32
SWFObject
40
Accessibility
DoubleClick Floodlight
87
SWFObject
72
Security
DoubleClick Floodlight
64
SWFObject
60
SEO
DoubleClick Floodlight
91
SWFObject
88
Composite
DoubleClick Floodlight
72
SWFObject
69

DoubleClick Floodlight outperforms SWFObject in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (72 vs 69). SWFObject leads in performance.

When to choose DoubleClick Floodlight

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

When to choose SWFObject

Choose SWFObject when your primary concern is 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 10 audited SWFObject 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 SWFObject?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, SWFObject sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (40 vs 32 on average).
Which has better security, DoubleClick Floodlight or SWFObject?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on security analysis (64 vs 60 on average).
Which has better accessibility, DoubleClick Floodlight or SWFObject?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor DoubleClick Floodlight (87 vs 72). 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 SWFObject?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 88 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 SWFObject?
DoubleClick Floodlight sites show lower Time to First Byte (340 ms vs 508 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 SWFObject for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. SWFObject 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