These sit in different price classes - KEF LSX II costs roughly 2.4x what Cambridge Audio L R S does. Expect it to lead on paper; the question is whether the gap is audible enough in your room to be worth it.
| Area | Better | Why |
|---|
| Bass | B | KEF LSX II digs deeper - 54Hz against 60Hz. A subwoofer would even that out. |
| Built-in power | B | KEF LSX II has the bigger amplifier (200W vs 100W RMS). |
| Connections | B | KEF LSX II adds Wi-Fi, streaming and HDMI. |
| Size | depends | Similar cabinet size - neither is easier to fit. |
| Expandability | depends | Cambridge Audio L R S: a sub output; KEF LSX II: a sub output. |
| Price | A | Cambridge Audio L R S is cheaper - $549 against $1,299, about 58% less; arguably a different class. |
A Cambridge Audio L R S B KEF LSX II
depends neither is better in the abstract - it turns on your room, your system or how you will use them. Only specs published for both speakers are judged; anything missing on either side is left out rather than guessed.
Which should you choose?
The usual trade-off: KEF LSX II measures better, Cambridge Audio L R S costs about about 137% more% less. Whether that gap is worth the money is the call only you can make - and in a normal room it is often smaller than the numbers suggest. If a subwoofer is in your plans, the bass gap largely stops mattering - you would be crossing over above 60Hz anyway, which makes the cheaper Cambridge Audio L R S much easier to justify. Think about the whole system, not just the speakers: the roughly $750 saved by taking the cheaper pair would buy a subwoofer or a better amplifier, and either usually does more for the sound than the difference between these two.
And remember what a spec sheet cannot show: how each looks in your room and whether the finish suits it, what dealer support and warranty are like where you live, and how they actually sound to you. If you can hear them first - ideally with your own music - that will tell you more than any number above.