Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Editor | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Editor |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 4.8 ★ | 4.5 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 2.8k | 8 |
| Active installs | 7,000,000+ | 10,000+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
LiteSpeed Cache edges out Robots.txt Editor on rating (4.8★ vs 4.5★), but the gap is small enough that pricing fit and feature differentiation should drive the decision more than the headline number.
LiteSpeed Cache has the larger user base (2,764 reviews vs 8), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Robots.txt Editor's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage site owners who need fast install and low risk should default to LiteSpeed Cache; mid-market and enterprise site owners with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Robots.txt Editor's 8-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than LiteSpeed Cache's broader-but-shallower coverage.
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: LiteSpeed Cache audit • Robots.txt Editor audit
| Keyword | LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Editor |
|---|---|---|
| online forms | #39 | Not ranked |
| live support | #39 | Not ranked |
| online form | #43 | Not ranked |
No tracked changes.
LiteSpeed Cache has the higher average rating (4.8★ from 2,764 reviews) compared to Robots.txt Editor (4.5★ from 8 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
LiteSpeed Cache holds the higher average rating (4.8★ vs 4.5★). 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 8), 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.
LiteSpeed Cache typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (2,764 reviews). Robots.txt Editor typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (8 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. LiteSpeed Cache and Robots.txt Editor 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 Robots.txt Editor" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
