Tools & Wizards About Us
qualitycleaning.us screenshot

Report Summary

  • 84

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    88% of other websites

  • 87

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 66% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 93

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    83% of websites

qualitycleaning.us

Tacoma House Cleaning, Commercial & Janitorial Cleaners

Page Load Speed

2.5 sec in total

First Response

117 ms

Resources Loaded

1.5 sec

Page Rendered

827 ms

qualitycleaning.us screenshot

About Website

Welcome to qualitycleaning.us homepage info - get ready to check Quality Cleaning best content right away, or after learning these important things about qualitycleaning.us

Tacoma House Cleaning & Tacoma Commercial Cleaning by Quality Commercial & Residential Cleaning LLC - Puget Sound & Tacoma professional cleaners.

Visit qualitycleaning.us

Key Findings

We analyzed Qualitycleaning.us page load time and found that the first response time was 117 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.

Performance Metrics

qualitycleaning.us performance score

84

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.8 s

89/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value1.8 s

98/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value3.1 s

93/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value300 ms

79/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.236

53/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value2.4 s

98/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

qualitycleaning.us

117 ms

qualitycleaning.us

572 ms

fbevents.js

21 ms

jquery.min.js

232 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

171 ms

Our browser made a total of 49 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 76% of them (37 requests) were addressed to the original Qualitycleaning.us, 8% (4 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com and 4% (2 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (636 ms) belongs to the original domain Qualitycleaning.us.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 1.4 MB (62%)

Content Size

2.2 MB

After Optimization

841.9 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Qualitycleaning.us main page is 2.2 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. 70% of websites need less resources to load. HTML takes 1.6 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-88%

Potential reduce by 1.4 MB

  • Original 1.6 MB
  • After minification 1.6 MB
  • After compression 181.8 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 1.4 MB or 88% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 524 B

  • Original 83.8 kB
  • After minification 83.3 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. Quality Cleaning images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 1.7 kB

  • Original 578.5 kB
  • After minification 578.5 kB
  • After compression 576.8 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. This website has mostly compressed JavaScripts.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 39 (91%)

Requests Now

43

After Optimization

4

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript

The browser has sent 43 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Quality Cleaning. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 40 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

qualitycleaning.us

qualitycleaning.us

117 ms

qualitycleaning.us

qualitycleaning.us

572 ms

fbevents.js

fbevents.js

21 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

232 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

171 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

284 ms

joinchat.min.js

joinchat.min.js

284 ms

pixel-cat.min.js

pixel-cat.min.js

284 ms

video.js

video.js

327 ms

jquery.smartmenus.min.js

jquery.smartmenus.min.js

326 ms

api.js

api.js

298 ms

js_cookie.min.js

js_cookie.min.js

326 ms

uael-modal-popup.min.js

uael-modal-popup.min.js

465 ms

jquery_resize.min.js

jquery_resize.min.js

467 ms

jquery-numerator.min.js

jquery-numerator.min.js

468 ms

uael-frontend.min.js

uael-frontend.min.js

469 ms

jquery_twentytwenty.min.js

jquery_twentytwenty.min.js

470 ms

jquery_event_move.min.js

jquery_event_move.min.js

468 ms

imagesloaded.min.js

imagesloaded.min.js

477 ms

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

477 ms

webpack.runtime.min.js

webpack.runtime.min.js

477 ms

frontend-modules.min.js

frontend-modules.min.js

526 ms

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

476 ms

regenerator-runtime.min.js

regenerator-runtime.min.js

477 ms

wp-polyfill.min.js

wp-polyfill.min.js

561 ms

hooks.min.js

hooks.min.js

588 ms

i18n.min.js

i18n.min.js

558 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

588 ms

waypoints.min.js

waypoints.min.js

557 ms

core.min.js

core.min.js

632 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

636 ms

elements-handlers.min.js

elements-handlers.min.js

634 ms

jquery.sticky.min.js

jquery.sticky.min.js

634 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

323 ms

bundle.js

bundle.js

36 ms

fa-regular-400.woff

fa-regular-400.woff

364 ms

fa-solid-900.woff

fa-solid-900.woff

512 ms

fa-brands-400.woff

fa-brands-400.woff

512 ms

eicons.woff

eicons.woff

513 ms

Quality_gold-white.png

Quality_gold-white.png

437 ms

Commercial-Residential-cleaning-services-Tacoma-Puget-Sound.jpg

Commercial-Residential-cleaning-services-Tacoma-Puget-Sound.jpg

480 ms

recaptcha__en.js

recaptcha__en.js

49 ms

js

js

84 ms

analytics.js

analytics.js

105 ms

destination

destination

155 ms

46eb0.js

46eb0.js

383 ms

banner.js

banner.js

111 ms

collect

collect

40 ms

js

js

81 ms

Accessibility Review

qualitycleaning.us accessibility score

87

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.

ARIA

These are opportunities to improve the usage of ARIA in your application which may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

ARIA IDs are not unique

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

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

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

qualitycleaning.us 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

qualitycleaning.us SEO score

93

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Crawling and Indexing

To appear in search results, crawlers need access to your app.

Impact

Issue

High

Links are not crawlable

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

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 Qualitycleaning.us 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 Qualitycleaning.us 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

qualitycleaning.us

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