Tools & Wizards About Us
demo.joomexp.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 63

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    77% of other websites

  • 97

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 92% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 99

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    93% of websites

demo.joomexp.com

WordPress vs. Joomla: which is better? - EasyWP

Page Load Speed

13.3 sec in total

First Response

112 ms

Resources Loaded

11.8 sec

Page Rendered

1.4 sec

demo.joomexp.com screenshot

About Website

Visit demo.joomexp.com now to see the best up-to-date Demo Joomexp content for Turkey and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about demo.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 demo.joomexp.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Demo.joomexp.com page load time and found that the first response time was 112 ms and then it took 13.2 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 90% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

demo.joomexp.com performance score

63

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.1 s

81/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value3.4 s

67/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value3.2 s

92/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value760 ms

39/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.097

90/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value9.1 s

33/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

demo.joomexp.com

112 ms

327 ms

gtm.js

117 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

56 ms

style.min.css

37 ms

Our browser made a total of 61 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 2% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Demo.joomexp.com, 74% (45 requests) were made to Easywp.com and 10% (6 requests) were made to Youtube.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (9.4 sec) relates to the external source Easywp.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 374.1 kB (28%)

Content Size

1.3 MB

After Optimization

968.6 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Demo.joomexp.com main page is 1.3 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. 80% 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 765.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-76%

Potential reduce by 52.3 kB

  • Original 69.2 kB
  • After minification 67.1 kB
  • After compression 16.9 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 52.3 kB or 76% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-13%

Potential reduce by 102.1 kB

  • Original 765.7 kB
  • After minification 663.6 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. Obviously, Demo Joomexp needs image optimization as it can save up to 102.1 kB or 13% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.

JavaScript Optimization

-52%

Potential reduce by 219.5 kB

  • Original 425.8 kB
  • After minification 425.8 kB
  • After compression 206.3 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 219.5 kB or 52% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 92 B

  • Original 82.0 kB
  • After minification 82.0 kB
  • After compression 82.0 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. Demo.joomexp.com has all CSS files already compressed.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 15 (31%)

Requests Now

48

After Optimization

33

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 48 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Demo 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 13 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 4 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

demo.joomexp.com

demo.joomexp.com

112 ms

327 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

117 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

wp-emoji-release.min.js

56 ms

style.min.css

style.min.css

37 ms

classic-themes.min.css

classic-themes.min.css

36 ms

style.css

style.css

31 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

42 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

54 ms

logo-easywp-tm.svg

logo-easywp-tm.svg

30 ms

search.svg

search.svg

31 ms

hamburger.svg

hamburger.svg

32 ms

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-1-cover.png

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-1-cover.png

28 ms

isobel.png

isobel.png

33 ms

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-2-cost-to-run-1.png

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-2-cost-to-run-1.png

20 ms

3bXu4MRiJGk

3bXu4MRiJGk

247 ms

comment_count.js

comment_count.js

18 ms

comment-reply.min.js

comment-reply.min.js

31 ms

index.js

index.js

21 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-5.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-5.png

30 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-infographics.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-infographics.png

45 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-2.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-2.png

47 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-3.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-3.png

48 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-4-1024x577.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-4-1024x577.png

50 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-7.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-7.png

71 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-6-1024x770.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-6-1024x770.png

769 ms

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-1-1024x574.png

wordpress-vs-joomla-comparison-1-1024x574.png

51 ms

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-3-what-cms-do-1.png

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-3-what-cms-do-1.png

7558 ms

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-4-how-get-help-1.png

EasyWP-wp-vs-joomla-4-how-get-help-1.png

49 ms

twitter.svg

twitter.svg

63 ms

facebook.svg

facebook.svg

65 ms

linkedin.svg

linkedin.svg

69 ms

EasyWP-customers-world-radio-1-cover.png

EasyWP-customers-world-radio-1-cover.png

83 ms

richardk.png

richardk.png

83 ms

EasyWP-developers-in-demand-1-cover.png

EasyWP-developers-in-demand-1-cover.png

875 ms

default.png

default.png

84 ms

product-detail@3x.svg

product-detail@3x.svg

231 ms

count.js

count.js

37 ms

logo-easywp-octopus.svg

logo-easywp-octopus.svg

191 ms

logo-namecheap.svg

logo-namecheap.svg

187 ms

www-player.css

www-player.css

9 ms

www-embed-player.js

www-embed-player.js

36 ms

base.js

base.js

81 ms

Intelo-Semibold.woff

Intelo-Semibold.woff

475 ms

Intelo-Bold.woff

Intelo-Bold.woff

69 ms

Intelo-Regular.woff

Intelo-Regular.woff

535 ms

Intelo-Light.woff

Intelo-Light.woff

9439 ms

Intelo-Alt-ExtraBold.woff

Intelo-Alt-ExtraBold.woff

917 ms

Intelo-Italic.woff

Intelo-Italic.woff

4807 ms

Intelo-LightItalic.woff

Intelo-LightItalic.woff

969 ms

Intelo-SemiboldItalic.woff

Intelo-SemiboldItalic.woff

1060 ms

Intelo-BoldItalic.woff

Intelo-BoldItalic.woff

4429 ms

ad_status.js

ad_status.js

236 ms

gbh3CSa8NqpvnPvDWy96-3RMYviWHsJy_QFd7gAq7Jk.js

gbh3CSa8NqpvnPvDWy96-3RMYviWHsJy_QFd7gAq7Jk.js

229 ms

embed.js

embed.js

30 ms

id

id

92 ms

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

108 ms

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmEU9fBBc9.ttf

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmEU9fBBc9.ttf

109 ms

Create

Create

143 ms

GenerateIT

GenerateIT

20 ms

log_event

log_event

17 ms

Accessibility Review

demo.joomexp.com accessibility score

97

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

demo.joomexp.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

demo.joomexp.com SEO score

99

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

High

Tap targets are not sized appropriately

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 Demo.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 Demo.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.

Social Sharing Optimization

demo.joomexp.com

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