Tools & Wizards About Us

Report Summary

  • 95

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    93% of other websites

  • 100

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 97% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 92

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    74% of websites

walkingcomfort.com

Page Load Speed

512 ms in total

First Response

91 ms

Resources Loaded

421 ms

Page Rendered

0 ms

About Website

Click here to check amazing Walkingcomfort content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about walkingcomfort.com

Walking Comfort

Visit walkingcomfort.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Walkingcomfort.com page load time and found that the first response time was 91 ms and then it took 421 ms to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is an excellent result, as only 5% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

walkingcomfort.com performance score

95

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.6 s

94/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value1.8 s

99/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value2.8 s

96/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value180 ms

92/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value4.5 s

82/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

password

91 ms

main.css

29 ms

password.css

44 ms

main.js

71 ms

preloads.js

58 ms

Our browser made a total of 14 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that all of those requests were addressed to Walkingcomfort.com and no external sources were called. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (101 ms) belongs to the original domain Walkingcomfort.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 53.5 kB (28%)

Content Size

192.5 kB

After Optimization

139.0 kB

  • HTML
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Walkingcomfort.com main page is 192.5 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. 20% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 84.8 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-70%

Potential reduce by 52.9 kB

  • Original 75.4 kB
  • After minification 74.6 kB
  • After compression 22.5 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 52.9 kB or 70% of the original size.

JavaScript Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 279 B

  • Original 84.8 kB
  • After minification 84.8 kB
  • After compression 84.6 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. This website has mostly compressed JavaScripts.

CSS Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 343 B

  • Original 32.2 kB
  • After minification 32.2 kB
  • After compression 31.9 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. Walkingcomfort.com has all CSS files already compressed.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 11 (85%)

Requests Now

13

After Optimization

2

  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 13 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Walkingcomfort. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 9 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 4 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

Accessibility Review

walkingcomfort.com accessibility score

100

Accessibility Issues

Best Practices

walkingcomfort.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

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Browser errors were logged to the console

High

Page has valid source maps

SEO Factors

walkingcomfort.com SEO score

92

Search Engine Optimization Advices

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

    N/A

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Walkingcomfort.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), while the claimed language is English. Our system also found out that Walkingcomfort.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 data is detected on the main page of PARSED_DOMAIN, but there is no image specified in description. It would be a good idea for the website admin to select a nice image that can properly represent the website in Open Graph data, otherwise the first found image will be taken for this purpose and social media information block will look like this: