Tools & Wizards About Us
charlestonaesthetics.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 47

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    65% of other websites

  • 98

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 94% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 100

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    94% of websites

charlestonaesthetics.com

Medical Spa | Charleston Aesthetics | Charleston, SC

Page Load Speed

1.5 sec in total

First Response

126 ms

Resources Loaded

1.3 sec

Page Rendered

62 ms

charlestonaesthetics.com screenshot

About Website

Visit charlestonaesthetics.com now to see the best up-to-date Charleston Aesthetics content and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about charlestonaesthetics.com

At Charleston Aesthetics, we use only the highest quality, medical-grade products and cosmetic procedures for youth preservation and a revitalized complexion.

Visit charlestonaesthetics.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Charlestonaesthetics.com page load time and found that the first response time was 126 ms and then it took 1.3 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.

Performance Metrics

charlestonaesthetics.com performance score

47

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value3.8 s

28/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value5.3 s

22/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value6.4 s

40/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value450 ms

62/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.007

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value14.2 s

9/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

www.charlestonaesthetics.com

126 ms

minified.js

42 ms

focus-within-polyfill.js

37 ms

polyfill.min.js

71 ms

js

166 ms

Our browser made a total of 60 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 2% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Charlestonaesthetics.com, 40% (24 requests) were made to Static.parastorage.com and 22% (13 requests) were made to Sentry-next.wixpress.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (902 ms) relates to the external source Static.wixstatic.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 708.3 kB (51%)

Content Size

1.4 MB

After Optimization

671.2 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Charlestonaesthetics.com main page is 1.4 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. 55% of websites need less resources to load. HTML takes 859.9 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-80%

Potential reduce by 688.8 kB

  • Original 859.9 kB
  • After minification 858.0 kB
  • After compression 171.2 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 688.8 kB or 80% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-2%

Potential reduce by 3.9 kB

  • Original 212.1 kB
  • After minification 208.2 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. Charleston Aesthetics images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-5%

Potential reduce by 15.6 kB

  • Original 307.4 kB
  • After minification 307.4 kB
  • After compression 291.8 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.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 15 (45%)

Requests Now

33

After Optimization

18

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 33 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Charleston Aesthetics. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 16 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

www.charlestonaesthetics.com

www.charlestonaesthetics.com

126 ms

minified.js

minified.js

42 ms

focus-within-polyfill.js

focus-within-polyfill.js

37 ms

polyfill.min.js

polyfill.min.js

71 ms

js

js

166 ms

thunderbolt-commons.c1d8ed1c.bundle.min.js

thunderbolt-commons.c1d8ed1c.bundle.min.js

120 ms

main.1adb5ce4.bundle.min.js

main.1adb5ce4.bundle.min.js

127 ms

main.renderer.1d21f023.bundle.min.js

main.renderer.1d21f023.bundle.min.js

126 ms

lodash.min.js

lodash.min.js

129 ms

react.production.min.js

react.production.min.js

142 ms

react-dom.production.min.js

react-dom.production.min.js

145 ms

siteTags.bundle.min.js

siteTags.bundle.min.js

144 ms

injector.min.js

injector.min.js

260 ms

Now%20on%20Threads%20Banner_edited.png

Now%20on%20Threads%20Banner_edited.png

424 ms

bundle.min.js

bundle.min.js

218 ms

Aesthetics%20Wix%20Background%20(1)_edited.png

Aesthetics%20Wix%20Background%20(1)_edited.png

580 ms

11062b_3923c929931f4d86a315128575e24fb1~mv2.jpg

11062b_3923c929931f4d86a315128575e24fb1~mv2.jpg

646 ms

e82f34_28848fc4b45a4a598d20004664085b66~mv2.png

e82f34_28848fc4b45a4a598d20004664085b66~mv2.png

543 ms

e82f34_5f388a58997247ef8fafeceb3b9dfc83~mv2.png

e82f34_5f388a58997247ef8fafeceb3b9dfc83~mv2.png

527 ms

e82f34_fded674b2bb34682b3ff2c57db3dca56~mv2.jpg

e82f34_fded674b2bb34682b3ff2c57db3dca56~mv2.jpg

518 ms

e82f34_931ae2a29f7948aa97c2f3ba4d1b18ca~mv2.jpg

e82f34_931ae2a29f7948aa97c2f3ba4d1b18ca~mv2.jpg

658 ms

e82f34_33c9fbedeaff4b65acc4aa1e2e1ec48e~mv2.jpg

e82f34_33c9fbedeaff4b65acc4aa1e2e1ec48e~mv2.jpg

635 ms

e82f34_00b8da0c12ca4f80bfc89f02d4028e0c~mv2.jpg

e82f34_00b8da0c12ca4f80bfc89f02d4028e0c~mv2.jpg

691 ms

e82f34_16b8aed4aacf4179b469219d63bec194~mv2.jpg

e82f34_16b8aed4aacf4179b469219d63bec194~mv2.jpg

669 ms

e82f34_eb74cae31fc944419935b1baf210da6bf003.jpg

e82f34_eb74cae31fc944419935b1baf210da6bf003.jpg

582 ms

Aesthetics%20Wix%20Background%20(1)_edited.png

Aesthetics%20Wix%20Background%20(1)_edited.png

902 ms

185 ms

loader.js

loader.js

113 ms

e2b9cbeb-fa8e-41cd-8a6a-46044b29ba52.woff

e2b9cbeb-fa8e-41cd-8a6a-46044b29ba52.woff

49 ms

NGSpv5_NC0k9P_v6ZUCbLRAHxK1E1yysd0mg.woff

NGSpv5_NC0k9P_v6ZUCbLRAHxK1E1yysd0mg.woff

48 ms

NGSpv5_NC0k9P_v6ZUCbLRAHxK1EiSysd0mg.woff

NGSpv5_NC0k9P_v6ZUCbLRAHxK1EiSysd0mg.woff

38 ms

kU6VHbqMAZhaN_nXCmLQsQ.woff

kU6VHbqMAZhaN_nXCmLQsQ.woff

50 ms

I1Pn3gihk5vyP0Yw5GqKsQ.woff

I1Pn3gihk5vyP0Yw5GqKsQ.woff

47 ms

-HJgNsTwx9qXGSxqew62RQ.woff

-HJgNsTwx9qXGSxqew62RQ.woff

48 ms

51v0xj5VPw1cLYHNhfd8ND8E0i7KZn-EPnyo3HZu7kw.woff

51v0xj5VPw1cLYHNhfd8ND8E0i7KZn-EPnyo3HZu7kw.woff

51 ms

cca525a8-ad89-43ae-aced-bcb49fb271dc.woff

cca525a8-ad89-43ae-aced-bcb49fb271dc.woff

51 ms

opensans-regular-webfont.woff

opensans-regular-webfont.woff

52 ms

opensans-bold-webfont.woff

opensans-bold-webfont.woff

102 ms

138 ms

153 ms

150 ms

151 ms

148 ms

151 ms

177 ms

187 ms

186 ms

179 ms

179 ms

189 ms

211 ms

call-tracking_9.js

call-tracking_9.js

14 ms

37 ms

wcm

wcm

17 ms

deprecation-en.v5.html

deprecation-en.v5.html

6 ms

bolt-performance

bolt-performance

28 ms

deprecation-style.v5.css

deprecation-style.v5.css

9 ms

right-arrow.svg

right-arrow.svg

7 ms

WixMadeforDisplay_W_Bd.woff

WixMadeforDisplay_W_Bd.woff

5 ms

WixMadeforText_W_Rg.woff

WixMadeforText_W_Rg.woff

6 ms

Accessibility Review

charlestonaesthetics.com accessibility score

98

Accessibility Issues

Contrast

These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.

Impact

Issue

High

Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.

Best Practices

charlestonaesthetics.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

High

Page has valid source maps

SEO Factors

charlestonaesthetics.com SEO score

100

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

    EN

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

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

charlestonaesthetics.com

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