Tools & Wizards About Us
compare.rm.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 86

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    89% of other websites

  • 77

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 44% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 82

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    44% of websites

compare.rm.com

RM Compare, an altogether different approach to assessment

Page Load Speed

2.2 sec in total

First Response

175 ms

Resources Loaded

1.4 sec

Page Rendered

624 ms

compare.rm.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Compare RM content for Nigeria. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about compare.rm.com

RM Compare is a digital tool that uses Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) to improve educational outcomes around the world.

Visit compare.rm.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Compare.rm.com page load time and found that the first response time was 175 ms and then it took 2.1 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 40% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

compare.rm.com performance score

86

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.2 s

77/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value2.5 s

89/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value2.8 s

95/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value0 ms

100/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.261

47/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value2.2 s

99/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

compare.rm.com

175 ms

compare.rm.com

486 ms

main.css

41 ms

logo-rm-compare.svg

346 ms

Compare_Finance_-_Learn_tech.width-800.jpg

62 ms

Our browser made a total of 23 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 9% of them (2 requests) were addressed to the original Compare.rm.com, 91% (21 requests) were made to Cdn.compare.rm.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (487 ms) relates to the external source Cdn.compare.rm.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 130.6 kB (26%)

Content Size

494.3 kB

After Optimization

363.7 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Compare.rm.com main page is 494.3 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. Only a small number of websites need less resources to load. Images take 396.9 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-85%

Potential reduce by 45.6 kB

  • Original 53.7 kB
  • After minification 33.2 kB
  • After compression 8.1 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. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 20.5 kB, which is 38% 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 45.6 kB or 85% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-21%

Potential reduce by 83.7 kB

  • Original 396.9 kB
  • After minification 313.2 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, Compare RM needs image optimization as it can save up to 83.7 kB or 21% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.

JavaScript Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 230 B

  • Original 33.6 kB
  • After minification 33.6 kB
  • After compression 33.3 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. This website has mostly compressed JavaScripts.

CSS Optimization

-10%

Potential reduce by 1.1 kB

  • Original 10.2 kB
  • After minification 10.2 kB
  • After compression 9.1 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. Compare.rm.com has all CSS files already compressed.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 4 (25%)

Requests Now

16

After Optimization

12

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 16 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Compare RM. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 5 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

compare.rm.com

compare.rm.com

175 ms

compare.rm.com

compare.rm.com

486 ms

main.css

main.css

41 ms

logo-rm-compare.svg

logo-rm-compare.svg

346 ms

Compare_Finance_-_Learn_tech.width-800.jpg

Compare_Finance_-_Learn_tech.width-800.jpg

62 ms

alpine-persist.min.js

alpine-persist.min.js

52 ms

alpine.min.js

alpine.min.js

52 ms

htmx.min.js

htmx.min.js

52 ms

cms.js

cms.js

52 ms

wtm.bundle.css

wtm.bundle.css

54 ms

wtm.bundle.js

wtm.bundle.js

62 ms

icon-menu.svg

icon-menu.svg

16 ms

Gif_Catfeedback.width-800.gif

Gif_Catfeedback.width-800.gif

40 ms

ga_globe.width-1200.png

ga_globe.width-1200.png

32 ms

3.CJ-time.width-1200.png

3.CJ-time.width-1200.png

32 ms

forecasting.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.png

forecasting.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.png

29 ms

oleg-laptev-QRKJwE6yfJo-unsplash.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.jpg

oleg-laptev-QRKJwE6yfJo-unsplash.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.jpg

28 ms

Merrick_Education_-_Symposium_bann.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.jpg

Merrick_Education_-_Symposium_bann.2e16d0ba.fill-640x400.jpg

30 ms

MuseoSans-300.woff

MuseoSans-300.woff

404 ms

MuseoSans-700.woff

MuseoSans-700.woff

405 ms

Montserrat-ExtraBold.woff

Montserrat-ExtraBold.woff

475 ms

Montserrat-SemiBold.woff

Montserrat-SemiBold.woff

473 ms

Montserrat-Light.woff

Montserrat-Light.woff

487 ms

Accessibility Review

compare.rm.com accessibility score

77

Accessibility Issues

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-*] attributes do not match their roles

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.

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

Form elements do not have associated labels

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

compare.rm.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

SEO Factors

compare.rm.com SEO score

82

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Content Best Practices

Format your HTML in a way that enables crawlers to better understand your app’s content.

Impact

Issue

High

Links do not have descriptive text

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

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 Compare.rm.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 Compare.rm.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

compare.rm.com

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