3.9 sec in total
252 ms
1.9 sec
1.8 sec
Click here to check amazing Cqh Joomexp content for Turkey. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about cqh.joomexp.com
And that’s what we’re here to discuss; the pros and cons of WordPress vs. Joomla so you can decide which one is better for your next website.
Visit cqh.joomexp.comWe analyzed Cqh.joomexp.com page load time and found that the first response time was 252 ms and then it took 3.6 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 60% of websites can load faster.
cqh.joomexp.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value2.7 s
61/100
10%
Value5.1 s
25/100
25%
Value3.7 s
85/100
10%
Value1,190 ms
21/100
30%
Value0.097
90/100
15%
Value9.3 s
31/100
10%
252 ms
165 ms
185 ms
19 ms
35 ms
Our browser made a total of 66 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 2% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Cqh.joomexp.com, 67% (44 requests) were made to Easywp.com and 6% (4 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (693 ms) relates to the external source Easywp.com.
Page size can be reduced by 124.8 kB (12%)
1.1 MB
930.1 kB
In fact, the total size of Cqh.joomexp.com main page is 1.1 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. 75% of websites need less resources to load and that’s why Accessify’s recommendations for optimization and resource minification can be helpful for this project. Images take 875.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 51.6 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 51.6 kB or 75% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 58.6 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. Cqh Joomexp images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 14.5 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 14.5 kB or 16% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 68 B
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. Cqh.joomexp.com has all CSS files already compressed.
Number of requests can be reduced by 23 (42%)
55
32
The browser has sent 55 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Cqh Joomexp. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 17 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.
cqh.joomexp.com
252 ms
165 ms
gtm.js
185 ms
wp-emoji-release.min.js
19 ms
style.min.css
35 ms
style.css
40 ms
jquery.min.js
37 ms
jquery-migrate.min.js
32 ms
comment_count.js
102 ms
comment-reply.min.js
100 ms
index.js
101 ms
logo-easywp-tm.svg
76 ms
search.svg
75 ms
hamburger.svg
196 ms
EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-1-cover.png
195 ms
isobel.png
77 ms
EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-2-cost-to-run-1.png
196 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-5.png
196 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-infographics.png
196 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-2.png
194 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-3.png
200 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-4-1024x577.png
202 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-7.png
198 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-6-1024x770.png
200 ms
wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-1-1024x574.png
197 ms
EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-3-what-cms-do-1.png
202 ms
EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-4-how-get-help-1.png
202 ms
twitter.svg
206 ms
facebook.svg
202 ms
linkedin.svg
204 ms
EasyWP-website-cost-1-cover.png
693 ms
karol.png
209 ms
cover-wordpress-vs-weebly@2x.png
207 ms
erin.png
207 ms
product-detail@3x.svg
208 ms
count.js
189 ms
logo-easywp-octopus.svg
472 ms
logo-namecheap.svg
180 ms
analytics.js
67 ms
5670.js
98 ms
hotjar-683063.js
269 ms
quant.js
220 ms
fbevents.js
217 ms
Intelo-Semibold.woff
68 ms
Intelo-Bold.woff
69 ms
Intelo-Regular.woff
67 ms
Intelo-Light.woff
64 ms
Intelo-Alt-ExtraBold.woff
164 ms
Intelo-Italic.woff
163 ms
Intelo-LightItalic.woff
162 ms
Intelo-SemiboldItalic.woff
152 ms
Intelo-BoldItalic.woff
242 ms
collect
105 ms
collect
189 ms
collect
186 ms
collect
151 ms
www.easywp.com.json
138 ms
a18bb0e21d11a839b7adb013c92ee611.js
29 ms
509700933177832
86 ms
rules-p-ybgCwuafUBAFb.js
81 ms
ga-audiences
165 ms
modules.8203b45d0468dcab4b64.js
121 ms
www.easywp.com.json
54 ms
box-69edcc3187336f9b0a3fbb4c73be9fe6.html
115 ms
pixel;r=1079237958;labels=keywords.wordpress%2Ckeywords.wordpress%20hosting%2Ckeywords.managed%20wordpress%20hosting%2Ctitle.WordPress%20vs%20%20Joomla%3A%20which%20is%20better%3F%20-%20EasyWP%2Ctitle.WordPress%20vs%20%20Joomla%3A%20which%20is%20better%3F%2Cauthor.Isobel%20Weston%2Cauthor.Namecheap;source=gtm;rf=0;a=p-ybgCwuafUBAFb;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.easywp.com%2Fblog%2Fwordpress-vs-joomla%2F;uht=2;fpan=1;fpa=P0-1065278205-1664471434386;pbc=;ns=0;ce=1;qjs=1;qv=39016d63-20220929161725;cm=;gdpr=0;ref=;d=easywp.com;dst=0;et=1664471434386;tzo=-180;ogl=locale.en_US%2Ctype.article%2Ctitle.WordPress%20vs%252E%20Joomla%3A%20which%20is%20better%3F%20-%20EasyWP%2Cdescription.WordPress%20and%20Joomla%20are%20both%20open-source%252C%20which%20means%20the%20software%20is%20free%252C%20but%2Curl.https%3A%2F%2Fwww%252Eeasywp%252Ecom%2Fblog%2Fwordpress-vs-joomla%2F%2Csite_name.Managed%20WordPress%20Hosting%20-%20Publish%20in%20Minutes%20-%20EasyWP%2Cimage.https%3A%2F%2Fwww%252Eeasywp%252Ecom%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F03%2FEasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-3-what-cms%2Cimage%3Awidth.800%2Cimage%3Aheight.433%2Cimage%3Atype.image%2Fpng;ses=eaea36f4-672b-4f68-9e36-f1c5b7e0121a
77 ms
collect
15 ms
cqh.joomexp.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.
cqh.joomexp.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
cqh.joomexp.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 Cqh.joomexp.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 Cqh.joomexp.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.
cqh.joomexp.com
Open Graph data is detected on the main page of Cqh Joomexp. This is the best way to make the web page social media friendly. Here is how it looks like on Facebook: