Tools & Wizards About Us
applicationwrite.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 32

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    52% of other websites

  • 83

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 54% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 79

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    40% of websites

applicationwrite.com

Best Social Media Verification Services | Top White-Label Marketing Agency

Page Load Speed

3.1 sec in total

First Response

23 ms

Resources Loaded

2.3 sec

Page Rendered

764 ms

applicationwrite.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Applicationwrite content for India. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about applicationwrite.com

With our social media profile verification service, your brand will get instant social proof and credibility. We provide white label services for PR, social media verification.

Visit applicationwrite.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Applicationwrite.com page load time and found that the first response time was 23 ms and then it took 3.1 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 55% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

applicationwrite.com performance score

32

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value3.8 s

28/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value6.9 s

6/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value6.4 s

41/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value1,180 ms

21/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.062

97/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value9.3 s

31/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

applicationwrite.com

23 ms

faciliusinc.com

1491 ms

siteground-optimizer-combined-css-2c1c02249015201e5c2dabb12dab60d4.css

167 ms

css

39 ms

css

47 ms

Our browser made a total of 70 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 1% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Applicationwrite.com, 74% (52 requests) were made to Faciliusinc.com and 16% (11 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.5 sec) relates to the external source Faciliusinc.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 256.9 kB (44%)

Content Size

589.5 kB

After Optimization

332.5 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Applicationwrite.com main page is 589.5 kB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 70% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 303.4 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-84%

Potential reduce by 217.6 kB

  • Original 258.9 kB
  • After minification 255.3 kB
  • After compression 41.3 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 217.6 kB or 84% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 0 B

  • Original 27.2 kB
  • After minification 27.2 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. Applicationwrite images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-13%

Potential reduce by 39.4 kB

  • Original 303.4 kB
  • After minification 303.4 kB
  • After compression 264.0 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 39.4 kB or 13% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 47 (90%)

Requests Now

52

After Optimization

5

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 52 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Applicationwrite. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 44 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 5 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

applicationwrite.com

applicationwrite.com

23 ms

faciliusinc.com

faciliusinc.com

1491 ms

siteground-optimizer-combined-css-2c1c02249015201e5c2dabb12dab60d4.css

siteground-optimizer-combined-css-2c1c02249015201e5c2dabb12dab60d4.css

167 ms

css

css

39 ms

css

css

47 ms

css

css

48 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

134 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

99 ms

js

js

73 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

38 ms

lazysizes.min.js

lazysizes.min.js

88 ms

script.min.js

script.min.js

278 ms

popper.min.js

popper.min.js

107 ms

htbbootstrap.min.js

htbbootstrap.min.js

114 ms

waypoints.min.js

waypoints.min.js

119 ms

jquery-easing.min.js

jquery-easing.min.js

277 ms

jquery-mousewheel.min.js

jquery-mousewheel.min.js

278 ms

nectar_priority.min.js

nectar_priority.min.js

278 ms

transit.min.js

transit.min.js

278 ms

nectar-waypoints.min.js

nectar-waypoints.min.js

279 ms

imagesLoaded.min.js

imagesLoaded.min.js

279 ms

hoverintent.min.js

hoverintent.min.js

280 ms

magnific.min.js

magnific.min.js

279 ms

anime.min.js

anime.min.js

280 ms

superfish.min.js

superfish.min.js

280 ms

nectar-frontend.min.js

nectar-frontend.min.js

281 ms

touchswipe.min.js

touchswipe.min.js

281 ms

script.min.js

script.min.js

281 ms

general.min.js

general.min.js

282 ms

jquery-numerator.min.js

jquery-numerator.min.js

282 ms

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

283 ms

webpack.runtime.min.js

webpack.runtime.min.js

282 ms

frontend-modules.min.js

frontend-modules.min.js

283 ms

hooks.min.js

hooks.min.js

283 ms

i18n.min.js

i18n.min.js

282 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

283 ms

waypoints.min.js

waypoints.min.js

283 ms

core.min.js

core.min.js

284 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

284 ms

elements-handlers.min.js

elements-handlers.min.js

283 ms

underscore.min.js

underscore.min.js

369 ms

wp-util.min.js

wp-util.min.js

370 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

369 ms

wpforms.min.js

wpforms.min.js

295 ms

conditional-logic-fields.min.js

conditional-logic-fields.min.js

291 ms

jquery.intl-tel-input.min.js

jquery.intl-tel-input.min.js

272 ms

jquery.validate.min.js

jquery.validate.min.js

264 ms

jquery.inputmask.min.js

jquery.inputmask.min.js

263 ms

mailcheck.min.js

mailcheck.min.js

260 ms

punycode.min.js

punycode.min.js

104 ms

utils.min.js

utils.min.js

103 ms

new-ff-logo.png

new-ff-logo.png

103 ms

BG-HomePage-High.png

BG-HomePage-High.png

102 ms

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmWUlfBBc9.ttf

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmWUlfBBc9.ttf

94 ms

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

334 ms

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmSU5fBBc9.ttf

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmSU5fBBc9.ttf

356 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDDshdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDDshdTQ3ig.ttf

359 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDOUhdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDOUhdTQ3ig.ttf

358 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDLshdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDLshdTQ3ig.ttf

358 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDIkhdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDIkhdTQ3ig.ttf

359 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDGUmdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDGUmdTQ3ig.ttf

357 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDFwmdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDFwmdTQ3ig.ttf

356 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDDsmdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDDsmdTQ3ig.ttf

408 ms

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDBImdTQ3ig.ttf

XRXI3I6Li01BKofiOc5wtlZ2di8HDBImdTQ3ig.ttf

359 ms

fa-solid-900.woff

fa-solid-900.woff

92 ms

fa-regular-400.woff

fa-regular-400.woff

355 ms

icomoon.woff

icomoon.woff

91 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

244 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

293 ms

pexels-fauxels-3184465-1-1.jpg

pexels-fauxels-3184465-1-1.jpg

79 ms

Accessibility Review

applicationwrite.com accessibility score

83

Accessibility Issues

ARIA

These are opportunities to improve the usage of ARIA in your application which may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

[aria-*] attributes do not match their roles

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

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

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best practices

These items highlight common accessibility best practices.

Impact

Issue

High

[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.

Best Practices

applicationwrite.com best practices score

92

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

applicationwrite.com SEO score

79

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Content Best Practices

Format your HTML in a way that enables crawlers to better understand your app’s content.

Impact

Issue

High

Links do not have descriptive text

Crawling and Indexing

To appear in search results, crawlers need access to your app.

Impact

Issue

High

Links are not crawlable

High

robots.txt is not valid

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

High

Document uses legible font sizes

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    EN

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Applicationwrite.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 Applicationwrite.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.

Social Sharing Optimization

applicationwrite.com

Open Graph data is detected on the main page of Applicationwrite. This is the best way to make the web page social media friendly. Here is how it looks like on Facebook: