Tools & Wizards About Us
liligo.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 39

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    59% of other websites

  • 95

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 87% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    81% of websites

  • 98

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    92% of websites

liligo.com

Compare flights & cheap flight tickets

Page Load Speed

3.2 sec in total

First Response

172 ms

Resources Loaded

2.8 sec

Page Rendered

253 ms

liligo.com screenshot

About Website

Welcome to liligo.com homepage info - get ready to check Liligo best content for France right away, or after learning these important things about liligo.com

Your cheap flight comparison website ✈ LILIGO ✈ Find the best deals on plane tickets among hundreds of travel sites!

Visit liligo.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Liligo.com page load time and found that the first response time was 172 ms and then it took 3 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 55% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

liligo.com performance score

39

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value3.6 s

32/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value3.9 s

52/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value4.3 s

76/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value2,800 ms

3/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.122

84/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value10.9 s

21/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

liligo.com

172 ms

www.liligo.com

242 ms

css

25 ms

default.css

434 ms

full.js

457 ms

Our browser made a total of 67 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 18% of them (12 requests) were addressed to the original Liligo.com, 43% (29 requests) were made to Static.liligo.com and 7% (5 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.2 sec) relates to the external source Clicktripz.co.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 257.1 kB (26%)

Content Size

996.0 kB

After Optimization

738.9 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Liligo.com main page is 996.0 kB. 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 603.8 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-72%

Potential reduce by 38.2 kB

  • Original 53.2 kB
  • After minification 50.5 kB
  • After compression 15.1 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 38.2 kB or 72% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-2%

Potential reduce by 11.5 kB

  • Original 603.8 kB
  • After minification 592.3 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. Liligo images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-61%

Potential reduce by 207.2 kB

  • Original 338.5 kB
  • After minification 337.8 kB
  • After compression 131.2 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 207.2 kB or 61% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-53%

Potential reduce by 257 B

  • Original 482 B
  • After minification 438 B
  • After compression 225 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. Liligo.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 257 B or 53% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 21 (38%)

Requests Now

56

After Optimization

35

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 56 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Liligo. 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.

Network Requests Diagram

liligo.com

liligo.com

172 ms

www.liligo.com

www.liligo.com

242 ms

css

css

25 ms

default.css

default.css

434 ms

full.js

full.js

457 ms

FrontendHPv5

FrontendHPv5

87 ms

full.js

full.js

496 ms

bg-default.png

bg-default.png

92 ms

submit.png

submit.png

93 ms

v1.js

v1.js

88 ms

new_comploc.jsp

new_comploc.jsp

225 ms

215 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

31 ms

evt

evt

164 ms

evt

evt

184 ms

evt

evt

174 ms

BRAVO.gif

BRAVO.gif

112 ms

BOAF.gif

BOAF.gif

91 ms

EDR.gif

EDR.gif

91 ms

FNET.gif

FNET.gif

177 ms

HOP2.gif

HOP2.gif

169 ms

travel-to-LasVegas.jpg

travel-to-LasVegas.jpg

180 ms

travel-to-PuertoRico.jpg

travel-to-PuertoRico.jpg

179 ms

travel-to-London.jpg

travel-to-London.jpg

204 ms

travel-to-Australia.jpg

travel-to-Australia.jpg

391 ms

travel-to-Cancun.jpg

travel-to-Cancun.jpg

403 ms

travel-to-Chicago.jpg

travel-to-Chicago.jpg

431 ms

travel-to-Mexico.jpg

travel-to-Mexico.jpg

261 ms

travel-to-Italy.jpg

travel-to-Italy.jpg

263 ms

travel-to-SanDiego.jpg

travel-to-SanDiego.jpg

296 ms

travel-to-Paris.jpg

travel-to-Paris.jpg

348 ms

travel-to-NewOrleans.jpg

travel-to-NewOrleans.jpg

349 ms

travel-to-Boston.jpg

travel-to-Boston.jpg

388 ms

20160226_big.jpg

20160226_big.jpg

434 ms

A4RWZsncmJ25G8iqn2EHN_esZW2xOQ-xsNqO47m55DA.woff

A4RWZsncmJ25G8iqn2EHN_esZW2xOQ-xsNqO47m55DA.woff

63 ms

x-7NZTw0n-ypOAaIE8uSrvesZW2xOQ-xsNqO47m55DA.woff

x-7NZTw0n-ypOAaIE8uSrvesZW2xOQ-xsNqO47m55DA.woff

63 ms

ga.js

ga.js

36 ms

analytics.js

analytics.js

70 ms

conversion_async.js

conversion_async.js

31 ms

boxever-min.js

boxever-min.js

515 ms

ld.js

ld.js

50 ms

ytc.js

ytc.js

72 ms

index.js

index.js

205 ms

52 ms

__utm.gif

__utm.gif

26 ms

logsession.jsp

logsession.jsp

146 ms

event

event

36 ms

CHO.gif

CHO.gif

313 ms

linkid.js

linkid.js

11 ms

collect

collect

22 ms

65 ms

collect

collect

63 ms

config

config

89 ms

ct.js

ct.js

129 ms

ARGUS.gif

ARGUS.gif

109 ms

ads.js

ads.js

146 ms

pseudo_popunder_proxy.php

pseudo_popunder_proxy.php

174 ms

widget_flights_handler.php

widget_flights_handler.php

970 ms

widget_flights_handler.php

widget_flights_handler.php

1226 ms

FL.gif

FL.gif

95 ms

boxever-cross-domain.html

boxever-cross-domain.html

171 ms

BOOK.gif

BOOK.gif

95 ms

widget_flights_handler.php

widget_flights_handler.php

1132 ms

F9.gif

F9.gif

96 ms

create.json

create.json

101 ms

ATLCH.gif

ATLCH.gif

94 ms

create.json

create.json

139 ms

Accessibility Review

liligo.com accessibility score

95

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.

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

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

liligo.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

SEO Factors

liligo.com SEO score

98

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 Liligo.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 Liligo.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

liligo.com

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Liligo. 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: