2.7 sec in total
330 ms
2.3 sec
120 ms
Welcome to comparison.travel homepage info - get ready to check Comparison best content for China right away, or after learning these important things about comparison.travel
The domain name comparison.travel is for sale. Make an offer or buy it now at a set price.
Visit comparison.travelWe analyzed Comparison.travel page load time and found that the first response time was 330 ms and then it took 2.4 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 45% of websites can load faster.
comparison.travel performance score
330 ms
326 ms
167 ms
175 ms
187 ms
Our browser made a total of 74 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 81% of them (60 requests) were addressed to the original Comparison.travel, 4% (3 requests) were made to Facebook.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to Searchboth.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (497 ms) belongs to the original domain Comparison.travel.
Page size can be reduced by 861.8 kB (58%)
1.5 MB
615.4 kB
In fact, the total size of Comparison.travel main page is 1.5 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. 40% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 679.6 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 24.4 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. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 6.5 kB, which is 21% 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 24.4 kB or 78% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 48.7 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. Obviously, Comparison needs image optimization as it can save up to 48.7 kB or 11% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.
Potential reduce by 494.4 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 494.4 kB or 73% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 294.2 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. Comparison.travel needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 294.2 kB or 89% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 28 (38%)
73
45
The browser has sent 73 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Comparison. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 14 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 10 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
www.comparison.travel
330 ms
protoaculous.1.8.2.min.js
326 ms
main.css
167 ms
style2.css
175 ms
include.js.php
187 ms
yellow.css
142 ms
FB.Share
14 ms
zapatec.js
78 ms
calendar.js
138 ms
calendar-en.js
105 ms
layout-2d.css
65 ms
layout-common.css
65 ms
index.php
170 ms
searchbothsmall.gif
431 ms
logo_small_answers.gif
408 ms
comparison.gif
94 ms
tw-button.jpg
233 ms
fb-button.jpg
211 ms
yt-button.jpg
202 ms
logo_small.gif
440 ms
154 ms
xd_arbiter.php
46 ms
xd_arbiter.php
96 ms
ga.js
44 ms
like.php
167 ms
__utm.gif
12 ms
share_button.php
133 ms
winter.css
144 ms
style.css
164 ms
site-style.css
220 ms
zapatec.js
215 ms
calendar.js
227 ms
calendar-en.js
148 ms
javascript.js
229 ms
protoaculous.1.8.2.min.js
352 ms
vpc6VNjRPXV.js
70 ms
LVx-xkvaJ0b.png
103 ms
layout-2d.css
90 ms
layout-common.css
80 ms
calendar_orange.gif
87 ms
orbitz_flights.gif
156 ms
cheaptickets.gif
142 ms
hotwire.gif
143 ms
cheapoair.gif
136 ms
travelgrove.jpg
196 ms
cheapair.jpg
153 ms
Travelocity.gif
203 ms
sb-out.png
208 ms
orbitz.gif
205 ms
priceline.gif
216 ms
hotels.jpg
224 ms
getaroom.jpg
258 ms
hotelclub.gif
272 ms
booking.jpg
280 ms
expedia_cars.gif
270 ms
onetravel.gif
285 ms
directlinecruises.png
347 ms
cruisedeals.gif
357 ms
americasvacationcenter.gif
357 ms
royalcaribbean.gif
335 ms
cruisesonly.gif
346 ms
expedia_flights.gif
347 ms
bbonline.gif
398 ms
hostels.gif
422 ms
hostelworld.gif
422 ms
hostelbookers.gif
422 ms
usahostels.gif
423 ms
motels.gif
423 ms
motel6.gif
497 ms
super8.gif
497 ms
78487
118 ms
click_tracking.js
126 ms
tab-out.png
66 ms
field-out.png
82 ms
comparison.travel SEO score
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Comparison.travel 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 Comparison.travel 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.
comparison.travel
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Comparison. 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: