Tools & Wizards About Us
comparison.sbm.pw screenshot

Report Summary

  • 30

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    50% of other websites

  • 77

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 44% of websites

  • 58

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    20% of websites

  • 84

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    52% of websites

comparison.sbm.pw

Quality Dofollow Social Bookmarking Sites List 2021

Page Load Speed

26 sec in total

First Response

2.3 sec

Resources Loaded

23.3 sec

Page Rendered

363 ms

comparison.sbm.pw screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Comparison Sbm content for India. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about comparison.sbm.pw

iPt.pw is an open source content management system that lets you easily <a href='http://iPt.pw'>create your own user-powered website</a>.

Visit comparison.sbm.pw

Key Findings

We analyzed Comparison.sbm.pw page load time and found that the first response time was 2.3 sec and then it took 23.7 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 95% of websites can load faster. Unfortunately, there were 3 request timeouts, which can generally increase the web page load time, as the browser stays idle while waiting for website response.

Performance Metrics

comparison.sbm.pw performance score

30

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.5 s

66/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value6.4 s

9/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value10.7 s

7/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value1,670 ms

11/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value11.0 s

21/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

comparison.sbm.pw

2338 ms

bootstrap.no-icons.min.css

422 ms

bootstrap-theme.min.css

314 ms

font-awesome.min.css

321 ms

jquery.pnotify.css

318 ms

Our browser made a total of 48 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 38% of them (18 requests) were addressed to the original Comparison.sbm.pw, 13% (6 requests) were made to C.amazon-adsystem.com and 10% (5 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (20.1 sec) relates to the external source Ir-in.amazon-adsystem.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 103.5 kB (36%)

Content Size

284.6 kB

After Optimization

181.1 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Comparison.sbm.pw main page is 284.6 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. 40% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 137.1 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-83%

Potential reduce by 85.5 kB

  • Original 102.8 kB
  • After minification 83.1 kB
  • After compression 17.2 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 19.7 kB, which is 19% 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 85.5 kB or 83% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-10%

Potential reduce by 534 B

  • Original 5.2 kB
  • After minification 4.6 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. Comparison Sbm images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-5%

Potential reduce by 6.4 kB

  • Original 137.1 kB
  • After minification 137.1 kB
  • After compression 130.7 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

-28%

Potential reduce by 11.0 kB

  • Original 39.6 kB
  • After minification 39.6 kB
  • After compression 28.6 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. Comparison.sbm.pw needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 11.0 kB or 28% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 23 (59%)

Requests Now

39

After Optimization

16

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 39 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Comparison Sbm. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 18 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 7 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

comparison.sbm.pw

comparison.sbm.pw

2338 ms

bootstrap.no-icons.min.css

bootstrap.no-icons.min.css

422 ms

bootstrap-theme.min.css

bootstrap-theme.min.css

314 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

321 ms

jquery.pnotify.css

jquery.pnotify.css

318 ms

style.css

style.css

17 ms

modernizr.js

modernizr.js

314 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

25 ms

custom.js

custom.js

315 ms

js

js

86 ms

email-decode.min.js

email-decode.min.js

315 ms

assoc.js

assoc.js

17 ms

my-style.css

my-style.css

309 ms

assoc.js

assoc.js

15 ms

snippet.js

snippet.js

24 ms

jquery-ui.min.js

jquery-ui.min.js

7 ms

jquery-ui.css

jquery-ui.css

10 ms

registration_verify.js

registration_verify.js

510 ms

bootstrap.min.js

bootstrap.min.js

511 ms

bootstrap-fileupload.js

bootstrap-fileupload.js

511 ms

jquery.pnotify.min.js

jquery.pnotify.min.js

480 ms

analytics.js

analytics.js

50 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

51 ms

125170_32.jpg

125170_32.jpg

210 ms

Avatar_32.png

Avatar_32.png

221 ms

123727_32.jpg

123727_32.jpg

270 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

97 ms

js

js

115 ms

collect

collect

69 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

353 ms

getad

getad

383 ms

collect

collect

46 ms

collect

collect

38 ms

collect

collect

22 ms

collect

collect

22 ms

collect

collect

22 ms

assoc_lra.html

assoc_lra.html

4 ms

getad

getad

88 ms

assoc_lra.html

assoc_lra.html

5 ms

ir

ir

20084 ms

assoc_lra_s1_in_728x90.gif

assoc_lra_s1_in_728x90.gif

2 ms

assoc_lra_s1_in_728x90.gif

assoc_lra_s1_in_728x90.gif

6 ms

iu3

iu3

62 ms

getad

getad

87 ms

ir

ir

19972 ms

iu3

iu3

13 ms

ir

ir

19879 ms

iu3

iu3

14 ms

Accessibility Review

comparison.sbm.pw accessibility score

77

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

<frame> or <iframe> elements do not have a title

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Form elements do not have associated labels

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order

High

Some elements have a [tabindex] value greater than 0

Best Practices

comparison.sbm.pw best practices score

58

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

High

Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Browser errors were logged to the console

High

Issues were logged in the Issues panel in Chrome Devtools

SEO Factors

comparison.sbm.pw SEO score

84

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

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

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 doesn't use 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 Comparison.sbm.pw 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 Comparison.sbm.pw 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

comparison.sbm.pw

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