Tools & Wizards About Us
smscomparison.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 52

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    69% of other websites

  • 86

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 61% of websites

  • 75

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    35% of websites

  • 90

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    68% of websites

smscomparison.com

Compare Top SMS Providers For Businesses In 2024

Page Load Speed

1.3 sec in total

First Response

203 ms

Resources Loaded

628 ms

Page Rendered

512 ms

smscomparison.com screenshot

About Website

Visit smscomparison.com now to see the best up-to-date SMS Comparison content for United States and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about smscomparison.com

Looking for the best SMS service provider? Compare prices, features, and service and find the perfect match for your needs. Choose with confidence now.

Visit smscomparison.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Smscomparison.com page load time and found that the first response time was 203 ms and then it took 1.1 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 25% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

smscomparison.com performance score

52

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.9 s

53/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value3.0 s

77/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value4.6 s

70/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value1,850 ms

9/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.007

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value9.2 s

32/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

smscomparison.com

203 ms

www.smscomparison.com

133 ms

js

134 ms

css2

51 ms

frontend-gtag.min.js

15 ms

Our browser made a total of 62 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 84% of them (52 requests) were addressed to the original Smscomparison.com, 11% (7 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (203 ms) belongs to the original domain Smscomparison.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 59.7 kB (23%)

Content Size

256.8 kB

After Optimization

197.1 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Smscomparison.com main page is 256.8 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. 65% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 179.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-77%

Potential reduce by 59.1 kB

  • Original 76.5 kB
  • After minification 76.5 kB
  • After compression 17.4 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 59.1 kB or 77% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 585 B

  • Original 179.7 kB
  • After minification 179.1 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. SMS Comparison images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-3%

Potential reduce by 17 B

  • Original 655 B
  • After minification 655 B
  • After compression 638 B

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 21 (50%)

Requests Now

42

After Optimization

21

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 42 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of SMS Comparison. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 22 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

smscomparison.com

smscomparison.com

203 ms

www.smscomparison.com

www.smscomparison.com

133 ms

js

js

134 ms

css2

css2

51 ms

frontend-gtag.min.js

frontend-gtag.min.js

15 ms

autoptimize_single_31f5f8a4745a46b418ca5aabbd49295a.js

autoptimize_single_31f5f8a4745a46b418ca5aabbd49295a.js

40 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

39 ms

autoptimize_single_7823a3aa84a3c4b85c421f53399a863b.js

autoptimize_single_7823a3aa84a3c4b85c421f53399a863b.js

46 ms

autoptimize_single_fbc6aaab40069deb9434fc2cb6d61c8c.js

autoptimize_single_fbc6aaab40069deb9434fc2cb6d61c8c.js

36 ms

waypoints.min.js

waypoints.min.js

42 ms

jquery.counterup.min.js

jquery.counterup.min.js

42 ms

email-decode.min.js

email-decode.min.js

40 ms

autoptimize_single_2253c004e73897e03ca85e5ce084af6d.js

autoptimize_single_2253c004e73897e03ca85e5ce084af6d.js

50 ms

autoptimize_single_b101a50839c3477cc97eb720c829fc73.js

autoptimize_single_b101a50839c3477cc97eb720c829fc73.js

47 ms

yt-responsive.min.js

yt-responsive.min.js

56 ms

fnt-jquery.slicknav.min.js

fnt-jquery.slicknav.min.js

54 ms

fnt-slick.min.js

fnt-slick.min.js

51 ms

owl.carousel.min.js

owl.carousel.min.js

56 ms

autoptimize_single_133790bef8567b38743dbefe73862a8b.js

autoptimize_single_133790bef8567b38743dbefe73862a8b.js

63 ms

autoptimize_single_cf81a16de017c632188c7768e0e94d52.js

autoptimize_single_cf81a16de017c632188c7768e0e94d52.js

60 ms

lazyload.min.js

lazyload.min.js

64 ms

frontend-gtag.min.js

frontend-gtag.min.js

117 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

47 ms

autoptimize_single_31f5f8a4745a46b418ca5aabbd49295a.js

autoptimize_single_31f5f8a4745a46b418ca5aabbd49295a.js

93 ms

fnt-slick.min.js

fnt-slick.min.js

78 ms

fnt-jquery.slicknav.min.js

fnt-jquery.slicknav.min.js

76 ms

yt-responsive.min.js

yt-responsive.min.js

75 ms

owl.carousel.min.js

owl.carousel.min.js

76 ms

autoptimize_single_cf81a16de017c632188c7768e0e94d52.js

autoptimize_single_cf81a16de017c632188c7768e0e94d52.js

75 ms

autoptimize_single_133790bef8567b38743dbefe73862a8b.js

autoptimize_single_133790bef8567b38743dbefe73862a8b.js

72 ms

lazyload.min.js

lazyload.min.js

74 ms

pminstantpage.min.js

pminstantpage.min.js

70 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

58 ms

logo-sms.png

logo-sms.png

69 ms

SMS-Gateway-1.png

SMS-Gateway-1.png

68 ms

SMS-Marketing-1.png

SMS-Marketing-1.png

69 ms

pxiEyp8kv8JHgFVrFJA.ttf

pxiEyp8kv8JHgFVrFJA.ttf

76 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLGT9V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLGT9V1s.ttf

80 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLDz8V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLDz8V1s.ttf

89 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLEj6V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLEj6V1s.ttf

94 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLCz7V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLCz7V1s.ttf

98 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLDD4V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLDD4V1s.ttf

97 ms

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLBT5V1s.ttf

pxiByp8kv8JHgFVrLBT5V1s.ttf

97 ms

Cheap-Mass-Texting-1.png

Cheap-Mass-Texting-1.png

16 ms

ranking-e1639720626382.png

ranking-e1639720626382.png

24 ms

Email-To-SMS-1.png

Email-To-SMS-1.png

23 ms

EZTexting-1.png

EZTexting-1.png

24 ms

ClickSend-1.png

ClickSend-1.png

23 ms

SMS-Global-1.png

SMS-Global-1.png

23 ms

MessageBird-1.png

MessageBird-1.png

32 ms

Green-Icon-1.png

Green-Icon-1.png

38 ms

Green-Icon-2.png

Green-Icon-2.png

39 ms

9-out-of-10-1.png

9-out-of-10-1.png

40 ms

IMG01_SMS-Gateway-Providers-Comparison-2021_SMS-Gateway-Providers-Comparison-2021.png

IMG01_SMS-Gateway-Providers-Comparison-2021_SMS-Gateway-Providers-Comparison-2021.png

39 ms

IMG02_SMS-Marketing-USA-ComparisonV02.png

IMG02_SMS-Marketing-USA-ComparisonV02.png

38 ms

IMG03_Mass-Text-Messaging-Service-Provider-ComparisonV02.png

IMG03_Mass-Text-Messaging-Service-Provider-ComparisonV02.png

43 ms

robin-worrall-FPt10LXK0cg-unsplash.jpg

robin-worrall-FPt10LXK0cg-unsplash.jpg

62 ms

kvistholt-photography-oZPwn40zCK4-unsplash.jpg

kvistholt-photography-oZPwn40zCK4-unsplash.jpg

63 ms

SMS-Stats.png

SMS-Stats.png

61 ms

main.js

main.js

56 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

15 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

16 ms

Accessibility Review

smscomparison.com accessibility score

86

Accessibility Issues

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

Buttons do not have an accessible name

High

Links do not have a discernible name

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

Best Practices

smscomparison.com best practices score

75

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

SEO Factors

smscomparison.com SEO score

90

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

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 Smscomparison.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 Smscomparison.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

smscomparison.com

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