Skip to content

EX.CO vs Integral Ad Science

Based on 9 and 34 real audits

View EX.CO details | View Integral Ad Science details
MetricEX.COIntegral Ad ScienceWinner
Performance4535EX.CO
Accessibility9188EX.CO
Best Practices7683Integral Ad Science
SEO8993Integral Ad Science
Security7065EX.CO
TTFB462ms274msIntegral Ad Science
Composite7272Tie
Performance
EX.CO
45
Integral Ad Science
35
Accessibility
EX.CO
91
Integral Ad Science
88
Security
EX.CO
70
Integral Ad Science
65
SEO
EX.CO
89
Integral Ad Science
93
Composite
EX.CO
72
Integral Ad Science
72

EX.CO and Integral Ad Science are closely matched, each leading in different categories. EX.CO has a composite score of 72 while Integral Ad Science scores 72.

When to choose EX.CO

Choose EX.CO when your primary concern is performance and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Integral Ad Science

Choose Integral Ad Science when your primary concern is server response time 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 9 audited EX.CO 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 →

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, EX.CO or Integral Ad Science?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, EX.CO sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, EX.CO or Integral Ad Science?
EX.CO sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, EX.CO or Integral Ad Science?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor EX.CO (91 vs 88). 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, EX.CO or Integral Ad Science?
Integral Ad Science sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (93 vs 89 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), EX.CO or Integral Ad Science?
Integral Ad Science sites show lower Time to First Byte (274 ms vs 462 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 EX.CO or Integral Ad Science for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. EX.CO scores higher on overall composite score while EX.CO 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