6.5 sec in total
188 ms
6 sec
311 ms
Click here to check amazing Choice Screening content for United States. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about choicescreening.com
Comprehensive background screening doesn't have to be difficult. Choice Screening offers diverse background screening services for any industry.
Visit choicescreening.comWe analyzed Choicescreening.com page load time and found that the first response time was 188 ms and then it took 6.3 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 80% of websites can load faster.
choicescreening.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value3.4 s
38/100
10%
Value9.0 s
1/100
25%
Value7.1 s
31/100
10%
Value770 ms
38/100
30%
Value0.084
93/100
15%
Value11.4 s
19/100
10%
188 ms
4386 ms
78 ms
148 ms
151 ms
Our browser made a total of 57 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 82% of them (47 requests) were addressed to the original Choicescreening.com, 4% (2 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com and 2% (1 request) were made to Ajax.googleapis.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (4.4 sec) belongs to the original domain Choicescreening.com.
Page size can be reduced by 583.6 kB (26%)
2.3 MB
1.7 MB
In fact, the total size of Choicescreening.com main page is 2.3 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. 50% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 1.5 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 18.5 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 18.5 kB or 74% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 20.3 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. Choice Screening images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 476.4 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 476.4 kB or 66% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 68.5 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. Choicescreening.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 68.5 kB or 86% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 32 (60%)
53
21
The browser has sent 53 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Choice Screening. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 15 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 8 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
choicescreening.com
188 ms
www.choicescreening.com
4386 ms
gzip.php
78 ms
gzip.php
148 ms
module.css
151 ms
common.css
153 ms
cw-default.css
156 ms
cwsl_style.css
157 ms
jquery.min.js
27 ms
gzip.php
190 ms
gzip.php
218 ms
cab8eae7023815a84df9931a453e9cd5.js
223 ms
8a0f14d01e731fdec016fcad2190458c.js
221 ms
gzip.php
373 ms
gzip.php
223 ms
gzip.php
225 ms
widgets.js
6 ms
easyblog-3.9.19775.static.min.js
1032 ms
2fde269e14a072b7af022e4dd3c6076d.js
360 ms
gzip.php
395 ms
gzip.php
408 ms
gzip.php
394 ms
conversion.js
37 ms
bg-slice.jpg
154 ms
logo.gif
154 ms
icon-login.gif
153 ms
slogan-text.gif
153 ms
smicon-fb.png
153 ms
smicon-in.png
191 ms
smicon-googleplus.png
317 ms
smicon-tw.png
193 ms
smicon-rs.png
192 ms
smicon-blog.png
188 ms
loading.gif
239 ms
banner-hp-01a.jpg
719 ms
banner-hp-01b.jpg
720 ms
banner-hp-02a.jpg
534 ms
banner-hp-02b.jpg
717 ms
banner-hp-03a.jpg
717 ms
banner-hp-03b.jpg
830 ms
banner-hp-04a.jpg
802 ms
hp-body-slice.gif
717 ms
img-sm-01.jpg
717 ms
arrow-orange.gif
748 ms
img-sm-02.jpg
753 ms
watermark.gif
754 ms
icon-logo.gif
761 ms
menu_line_item.png
792 ms
analytics.js
16 ms
128 ms
cw_social_32.png
836 ms
fontawesome-webfont.woff
836 ms
457342.js
208 ms
collect
15 ms
collect
61 ms
52 ms
__ptq.gif
22 ms
choicescreening.com accessibility score
Contrast
These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.
Impact
Issue
Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.
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
choicescreening.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
User Experience
Impact
Issue
Serves images with low resolution
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
choicescreening.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
Tap targets are not sized appropriately
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Choicescreening.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 Choicescreening.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.
choicescreening.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Choice Screening. 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: