Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Quick Editor | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Quick Editor |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.8 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 2.8k | 2 |
| Active installs | 7,000,000+ | 900+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
| Built for Shopify | — | — |
Robots.txt Quick Editor edges out LiteSpeed Cache on rating (5.0★ vs 4.8★), 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 (2,758 reviews vs 2), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Robots.txt Quick Editor's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat. Recommended by store size: small/early-stage merchants who need fast install and low risk should default to Robots.txt Quick Editor; mid-market and enterprise merchants with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — LiteSpeed Cache's 2,758-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Robots.txt Quick Editor'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 Quick Editor audit
| Keyword | LiteSpeed Cache | Robots.txt Quick Editor |
|---|---|---|
| live support | #33 | Not ranked |
| online form | #37 | Not ranked |
| online forms | #37 | Not ranked |
Robots.txt Quick Editor has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 2 reviews) compared to LiteSpeed Cache (4.8★ from 2,758 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
It depends on what you're optimizing for. LiteSpeed Cache fits better if you prioritize broader integrations; Robots.txt Quick Editor is the call if you need the higher-rated option. Read both apps' detail pages on AppRanks for the full feature breakdown, install counts, and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the WordPress Plugin Directory marketplace. LiteSpeed Cache has more onboarding documentation maturity (2,758 reviews vs 2), which usually translates to better-tested setup wizards and quicker time-to-value. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly — read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for merchant-reported install experience.
LiteSpeed Cache typically suits early-stage and growth-mode stores based on its review-base composition (2,758 reviews). Robots.txt Quick Editor aligns more with early-stage and growth-mode stores (2 reviews). Larger review bases generally mean the app has been load-tested at scale — relevant if you're processing high order volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. LiteSpeed Cache and Robots.txt Quick 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 Quick Editor" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
