I have a lot of friends with a mere passing interest in chess, and most of them had naturally ended up on chess.com. They had never heard of Lichess. But invariably once they tried it they all said the same thing: lichess is much more intuitive and easy to use.
As for analysis, I think computer analysis is not actually very helpful anyway, unless a lot of effort is put into analysing the computer lines and discarding those that you couldn't possibly be expected to find. Most people who use computer analysis don't do this, and they walk away with the wrong conclusions. Chess.com might have a better experience for getting those wrong conclusions, I don't know. And hell, analysing blitz and rapid games is a waste of time anyway, other than looking up opening improvements.
The only analysis I do on Lichess then is mostly looking at the opening in blitz games where the opening went wrong for me, and maybe seeing if I missed a tactic in some position I was unsure about during the game. Lichess is perfectly fine for that.
I have a lot of friends with a mere passing interest in chess, and most of them had naturally ended up on chess.com. They had never heard of Lichess. But invariably once they tried it they all said the same thing: lichess is much more intuitive and easy to use.
As for analysis, I think computer analysis is not actually very helpful anyway, unless a lot of effort is put into analysing the computer lines and discarding those that you couldn't possibly be expected to find. Most people who use computer analysis don't do this, and they walk away with the wrong conclusions. Chess.com might have a better experience for getting those wrong conclusions, I don't know. And hell, analysing blitz and rapid games is a waste of time anyway, other than looking up opening improvements.
The only analysis I do on Lichess then is mostly looking at the opening in blitz games where the opening went wrong for me, and maybe seeing if I missed a tactic in some position I was unsure about during the game. Lichess is perfectly fine for that.