Download websites that use Litespeed Cache

About Litespeed Cache

A caching plugin is evidence that somebody noticed a performance problem and did something about it, which places this entry in a small group of signals that imply deliberate action rather than a default. As of September 2026 we detect it on 4,060,374 sites.

The specific plugin matters because it pairs with a particular commercial web server, and the pairing is what makes the signal precise. Its presence usually means the site is hosted somewhere that licensed that server, which turns a plugin detection into a reliable inference about the hosting provider underneath. Provider inference from the application layer is unusual and useful, because hosting is otherwise one of the harder things to establish from the outside.

There is also a behavioural reading. Installing and configuring a cache is a step beyond installing a theme, so this population skews toward owners who are engaged with their site's operation rather than merely its appearance. For anyone selling performance work, hosting migration or optimisation services, that engagement is the qualifying attribute: the problem is already acknowledged, which removes the hardest part of the conversation.

The inverse population is equally useful and frequently overlooked. Sites on the same platform, with the same weight profile, carrying no caching layer at all, are sites where the problem exists and has not been addressed. That list is longer, less qualified and considerably cheaper to reach, and it is only expressible as an absence against a full population.

United States accounts for 1,577,561 of detections and the .com zone leads, following the footprint of the hosting companies that license the underlying server.

The webatla export puts the plugin, the server, the platform, the interpreter and everything else on one row per domain, rebuilt daily, which is what makes both the presence query and the absence query a local filter.

The caching layer also creates a measurement wrinkle worth stating openly. An aggressive cache can suppress or normalise the headers and markup we use to fingerprint other parts of the stack, so our detections on cached sites are marginally less complete than on uncached ones. The effect is small, and it runs in a consistent direction, but presenting it as invisible would be dishonest.

In practical terms this means a cached site may show a shorter technology list than it truly has. Where that matters for a specific analysis, the presence of the cache itself is the flag to apply, and it sits on the same row as everything else. We would rather publish a row that carries its own caveat than one that quietly looks more complete than it is.

LiteSpeed Technologies publishes it under the GPL v3 license and it has been available since 2016, written in PHP to extend the platform it caches.