Report Summary

  • 100

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    97% of other websites

  • 84

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 56% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 64

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    24% of websites

Page Load Speed

177 ms in total

First Response

31 ms

Resources Loaded

79 ms

Page Rendered

67 ms

About Website

Visit comparetrap.com now to see the best up-to-date Comparetrap content for India and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about comparetrap.com

Visit comparetrap.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Comparetrap.com page load time and found that the first response time was 31 ms and then it took 146 ms to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is an excellent result, as only a small number of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

comparetrap.com performance score

100

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.1 s

99/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value1.1 s

100/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value1.1 s

100/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value0 ms

100/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value1.1 s

100/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

comparetrap.com

31 ms

comparetrap.com

37 ms

Our browser made a total of 2 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that all of those requests were addressed to Comparetrap.com and no external sources were called. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (37 ms) belongs to the original domain Comparetrap.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 640.4 kB (57%)

Content Size

1.1 MB

After Optimization

481.2 kB

In fact, the total size of Comparetrap.com main page is 1.1 MB. This result falls within the top 5000 of lightweight and thus fast loading web pages. Only a small number of websites need less resources to load. CSS take 463.4 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-41%

Potential reduce by 79 B

  • Original 195 B
  • After minification 151 B
  • After compression 116 B

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. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 44 B, which is 23% of the original size. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 79 B or 41% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 929 B

  • Original 293.0 kB
  • After minification 292.1 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. Comparetrap images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-68%

Potential reduce by 247.6 kB

  • Original 365.0 kB
  • After minification 349.2 kB
  • After compression 117.4 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 247.6 kB or 68% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-85%

Potential reduce by 391.8 kB

  • Original 463.4 kB
  • After minification 458.3 kB
  • After compression 71.6 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. Comparetrap.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 391.8 kB or 85% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

We found no issues to fix!

Requests Now

0

After Optimization

0

Besides the initial HTML request, no CSS, Javascripts, AJAX or image files were requested in the course of web page rendering.

Accessibility Review

comparetrap.com accessibility score

84

Accessibility Issues

Internationalization and localization

These are opportunities to improve the interpretation of your content by users in different locales.

Impact

Issue

High

<html> element does not have a [lang] attribute

Best Practices

comparetrap.com best practices score

83

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

SEO Factors

comparetrap.com SEO score

64

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    N/A

  • Language Claimed

    N/A

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Comparetrap.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Unfortunately we cannot identify language used on the page (probably there is a mix of languages, too little text or something else) and no language is claimed in <html> or <meta> tags either. Our system also found out that Comparetrap.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

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Comparetrap. 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: