2.3 sec in total
603 ms
1.4 sec
336 ms
Visit vigilant.com now to see the best up-to-date Vigilant content and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about vigilant.com
Visit vigilant.comWe analyzed Vigilant.com page load time and found that the first response time was 603 ms and then it took 1.7 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 30% of websites can load faster.
vigilant.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value2.6 s
62/100
10%
Value2.9 s
80/100
25%
Value3.4 s
89/100
10%
Value580 ms
51/100
30%
Value0.21
59/100
15%
Value11.6 s
18/100
10%
603 ms
30 ms
44 ms
48 ms
31 ms
Our browser made a total of 42 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 86% of them (36 requests) were addressed to the original Vigilant.com, 5% (2 requests) were made to Fonts.googleapis.com and 5% (2 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (603 ms) belongs to the original domain Vigilant.com.
Page size can be reduced by 1.4 MB (64%)
2.1 MB
755.5 kB
In fact, the total size of Vigilant.com main page is 2.1 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 65% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 956.6 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 159.6 kB
HTML content can be minified and compressed by a website’s server. The most efficient way is to compress content using GZIP which reduces data amount travelling through the network between server and browser. HTML code on this page is well minified. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 159.6 kB or 83% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 9.6 kB
Image size optimization can help to speed up a website loading time. The chart above shows the difference between the size before and after optimization. Vigilant images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 685.5 kB
It’s better to minify JavaScript in order to improve website performance. The diagram shows the current total size of all JavaScript files against the prospective JavaScript size after its minification and compression. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 685.5 kB or 72% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 503.3 kB
CSS files minification is very important to reduce a web page rendering time. The faster CSS files can load, the earlier a page can be rendered. Vigilant.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 503.3 kB or 89% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 16 (43%)
37
21
The browser has sent 37 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Vigilant. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 10 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 8 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
vigilant.com
603 ms
wp-emoji-release.min.js
30 ms
font-awesome.min.css
44 ms
settings.css
48 ms
css
31 ms
uaf.css
43 ms
css
40 ms
style.css
95 ms
font-awesome.css
51 ms
ilightbox.css
61 ms
animations.css
74 ms
jquery.js
83 ms
jquery-migrate.min.js
72 ms
jquery.themepunch.tools.min.js
87 ms
jquery.themepunch.revolution.min.js
87 ms
comment-reply.min.js
69 ms
main.min.js
265 ms
sdk.js
442 ms
widgets.js
374 ms
analytics.js
372 ms
logo.jpg
337 ms
logo2x.jpg
339 ms
fb.png
339 ms
gp.png
338 ms
li.png
338 ms
tw.png
338 ms
yt.png
391 ms
dummy.png
391 ms
icon4.png
390 ms
retail-icon.png
388 ms
manufacturing-icon.png
391 ms
service-icon.png
392 ms
construction-icon.png
391 ms
bg.png
394 ms
graph1.png
392 ms
150506122118Calibri-Light.woff
394 ms
small_left.png
71 ms
small_right.png
70 ms
fontawesome-webfont.woff
116 ms
fontawesome-webfont.woff
118 ms
collect
46 ms
bg.jpg
67 ms
vigilant.com accessibility score
Navigation
These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.
Impact
Issue
Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order
Names and labels
These are opportunities to improve the semantics of the controls in your application. This may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.
Impact
Issue
Links do not have a discernible name
vigilant.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Page has valid source maps
vigilant.com SEO score
Mobile Friendly
Make sure your pages are mobile friendly so users don’t have to pinch or zoom in order to read the content pages. [Learn more](https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/).
Impact
Issue
Document uses legible font sizes
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Vigilant.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that English is used on the page, and it matches the claimed language. Our system also found out that Vigilant.com main page’s claimed encoding is utf-8. Use of this encoding format is the best practice as the main page visitors from all over the world won’t have any issues with symbol transcription.
vigilant.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Vigilant. Lack of Open Graph description can be counter-productive for their social media presence, as such a description allows converting a website homepage (or other pages) into good-looking, rich and well-structured posts, when it is being shared on Facebook and other social media. For example, adding the following code snippet into HTML <head> tag will help to represent this web page correctly in social networks: