Comparing Ezoic CDN vs JavaScript Integration: My Experience & Insights

Ezoic offers multiple integration methods to optimize site speed and revenue, but the choice between Ezoic CDN and JavaScript (JS) integration can significantly affect performance, user experience, and ultimately, revenue. Here’s my journey switching between these methods, the technical hurdles I faced, and the performance insights I discovered along the way.

📆 Integration Timeline

• 2/26/2025: Enabled Ezoic via CDN integration.
• Soon after: Applied Leap Optimization.
• 3/18/2025: Switched to JavaScript (JS) integration.

📊 Pageview Trends Over Time

Here's a visual of how pageviews changed throughout each transition phase:

The image shows:

• Baseline pageviews before Ezoic (~70k/day)
• Drop to ~50k after enabling CDN
• Minor improvement after Leap Optimization
• Another drop after switching to JS integration

📉 Initial Impact with CDN Integration

Before integrating Ezoic, my website averaged around 70,000 daily pageviews. However, upon enabling Ezoic via the CDN, pageviews dropped to around 50,000. Several potential factors contributed to this:

• Core Web Vitals deterioration: Especially Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) took a hit.
• Ad-heavy layout: Ezoic’s AI displayed a greater number of ads, which may have increased bounce rates.

Even with Leap Optimization, which slightly improved web vitals and loading speed, LCP remained an issue. In fact, efforts to delay script loading to improve LCP caused new issues like Interaction to Next Paint (INP) problems on some pages.

I also optimized ad placement and limited their quantity, which offered mild improvement in pageviews. But despite these changes, the one component I couldn’t get right was caching.

🧩 Caching Issues With Ezoic CDN

This was the biggest limitation for my use case.

My website is highly dynamic, and I frequently update pages. I need the ability to revalidate cached pages to show fresh content, especially for logged-in users who see personalized features.

Ezoic CDN, however:

• Overrides server-side caching headers
• Lacks a native way to configure revalidation
• Doesn’t easily support differential caching (public vs authenticated content)

I tried integrating Ezoic’s API-based cache clearing, but it wasn’t scalable due to the dynamic nature of the content. What I needed was a way to cache only the guest version, while letting logged-in users always get the live version.

🔁 Switching to JavaScript Integration

On 3/18/2025, I moved to JS integration for more control. The switch delivered immediate performance gains:

• Faster load times
• Better LCP
• Resolved INP issues

Here are the performance results from Lighthouse after the JS switch:

📱 Mobile Performance

💻 Desktop Performance

The difference in performance, especially on mobile, was significantly better than with CDN integration. You may visit my other post on 'My Experience with Ezoic: Traffic Drop After Switching from AdSense' to compare the Lighthouse performance with Ezoic CDN integration.

⚠️ New Issues After Switching to JS Integration

Despite the improved performance metrics, pageviews dropped further to under 40k according to Ezoic Analytics, and revenue started to decline gradually.

Why? Here's what I suspect:

• Ad Loading Delays: While LCP improved, the total ad load time increased, especially with ads rendering after page load.
• Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS): JS integration loads above-the-fold (ATF) ads without defining the height beforehand, causing layout shifts. In contrast, the CDN pre-defines ad dimensions, reducing CLS issues.
• Fixed Ad Heights: I had to define fixed sizes for ATF placeholders to counteract the CLS, which limited Ezoic’s AI’s flexibility in choosing the most profitable ad sizes.

So, despite the better Lighthouse scores, the user experience around ads deteriorated, especially on mobile, leading to lower engagement and monetization.

🤔 Considering a Return to CDN Integration

I’m now seriously considering switching back to the CDN integration, primarily for two reasons:

• Better ad rendering and monetization under CDN.
• Cleaner CLS handling with predefined ad dimensions.

However, the biggest barrier remains: Ezoic’s caching system. My dynamic pages need differentiated caching for guest users and authenticated users — something Ezoic currently lacks robust support for.

I previously attempted an API-based cache invalidation strategy, but it wasn’t practical due to the volume and complexity of dynamic content. What I need is a system that allows:

• Separate caching for logged-in and logged-out users
• Automatic revalidation of content upon backend updates

📈 Google Search Console Perspective

Interestingly, even though Ezoic Analytics showed a sharp decline in pageviews after the JS switch, Google Search Console (GSC) reported consistent performance throughout all phases.

This raises questions about how Ezoic counts and reports pageviews, and how ad rendering impacts their metrics versus real user interaction as seen by Google.

📌 Final Thoughts

Each integration method has its strengths and weaknesses:

Integration Method	Pros	Cons
Ezoic CDN	Faster ad rendering, better CLS, higher revenue potential	Poor caching control, LCP issues, hard to manage dynamic content
JS Integration	More control, better LCP/INP, easy to manage dynamic content	Slower ad loading, CLS issues, lower monetization

If you run a static content site, Ezoic CDN with Leap may be optimal. However, for highly dynamic or personalized websites, JavaScript integration offers better flexibility, though you'll need to work around ad layout and monetization trade-offs.

Until Ezoic provides more advanced cache control (e.g., cache tagging, private vs public cache rules), dynamic sites may always have to compromise between performance and personalization.