Skip to content

Litespeed Cache vs Oxygen

Based on 34 and 2 real audits

View Litespeed Cache details | View Oxygen details
MetricLitespeed CacheOxygenWinner
Performance5665Oxygen
Accessibility9083Litespeed Cache
Best Practices9096Oxygen
SEO9288Litespeed Cache
Security7380Oxygen
TTFB1285ms427msOxygen
Composite8083Oxygen
Performance
Litespeed Cache
56
Oxygen
65
Accessibility
Litespeed Cache
90
Oxygen
83
Security
Litespeed Cache
73
Oxygen
80
SEO
Litespeed Cache
92
Oxygen
88
Composite
Litespeed Cache
80
Oxygen
83

Oxygen outperforms Litespeed Cache in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (83 vs 80). Litespeed Cache leads in accessibility, SEO.

When to choose Litespeed Cache

Choose Litespeed Cache when your primary concern is accessibility and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Oxygen

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 34 audited Litespeed Cache sites and 2 audited Oxygen 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, Litespeed Cache or Oxygen?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Oxygen sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (65 vs 56 on average).
Which has better security, Litespeed Cache or Oxygen?
Oxygen sites score higher on security analysis (80 vs 73 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Litespeed Cache or Oxygen?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Litespeed Cache (90 vs 83). 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, Litespeed Cache or Oxygen?
Litespeed Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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), Litespeed Cache or Oxygen?
Oxygen sites show lower Time to First Byte (427 ms vs 1285 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 Litespeed Cache or Oxygen for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Oxygen scores higher on overall composite score while Litespeed Cache 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