Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Async JavaScript | LiteSpeed Cache | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Async JavaScript | LiteSpeed Cache |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.7 ★ | ★ 4.8 ★ |
| Total reviews | 102 | ★ 2.8k |
| Active installs | 70,000+ | 7,000,000+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
Async JavaScript and LiteSpeed Cache are evenly matched on rating (4.7★ vs 4.8★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow.
LiteSpeed Cache has the larger user base (2,764 reviews vs 102), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Async JavaScript's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended evaluation path: install both apps' free tiers (where available) and run them in parallel on a small cohort for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most site owners the deciding factor will be a single integration or workflow detail that's hard to compare from listing pages alone.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical WordPress Plugin Directory listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Async JavaScript audit • LiteSpeed Cache audit
| Keyword | Async JavaScript | LiteSpeed Cache |
|---|---|---|
| online forms | Not ranked | #39 |
| live support | Not ranked | #39 |
| online form | Not ranked | #43 |
No tracked changes.
Async JavaScript (4.7★, 102 reviews) and LiteSpeed Cache (4.8★, 2,764 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.
LiteSpeed Cache holds the higher average rating (4.8★ vs 4.7★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the WordPress Plugin Directory. LiteSpeed Cache has the deeper published review base (2,764 vs 102), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Async JavaScript typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (102 reviews). LiteSpeed Cache typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (2,764 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Async JavaScript and LiteSpeed Cache both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Async JavaScript" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
