Tools & Wizards About Us
usenet-anbietervergleich.de screenshot

Report Summary

  • 81

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    86% of other websites

  • 57

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 24% of websites

  • 75

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    35% of websites

  • 67

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    26% of websites

usenet-anbietervergleich.de

usenet-anbietervergleich.de - This website is for sale! - usenet anbietervergleich Resources and Information.

Page Load Speed

2.7 sec in total

First Response

321 ms

Resources Loaded

2.2 sec

Page Rendered

185 ms

usenet-anbietervergleich.de screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Usenet Anbietervergleich content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about usenet-anbietervergleich.de

This website is for sale! usenet-anbietervergleich.de is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, us...

Visit usenet-anbietervergleich.de

Key Findings

We analyzed Usenet-anbietervergleich.de page load time and found that the first response time was 321 ms and then it took 2.3 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

usenet-anbietervergleich.de performance score

81

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.5 s

96/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value5.0 s

26/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value1.5 s

100/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value0 ms

100/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.007

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value1.7 s

100/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

usenet-anbietervergleich.de

321 ms

cookieconsent.min.js

18 ms

header.jpg

586 ms

button2.jpg

118 ms

counter

198 ms

Our browser made a total of 62 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 92% of them (57 requests) were addressed to the original Usenet-anbietervergleich.de, 5% (3 requests) were made to Cdnjs.cloudflare.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to 4stats.de. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.1 sec) belongs to the original domain Usenet-anbietervergleich.de.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 107.6 kB (16%)

Content Size

667.8 kB

After Optimization

560.2 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Usenet-anbietervergleich.de main page is 667.8 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. 25% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 630.4 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-78%

Potential reduce by 22.4 kB

  • Original 28.7 kB
  • After minification 27.1 kB
  • After compression 6.2 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. 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 22.4 kB or 78% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-14%

Potential reduce by 85.2 kB

  • Original 630.4 kB
  • After minification 545.2 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, Usenet Anbietervergleich needs image optimization as it can save up to 85.2 kB or 14% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.

JavaScript Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 21 B

  • Original 8.8 kB
  • After minification 8.8 kB
  • After compression 8.7 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.

Requests Breakdown

We found no issues to fix!

Requests Now

61

After Optimization

61

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 61 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Usenet Anbietervergleich. According to our analytics all requests are already optimized.

Network Requests Diagram

usenet-anbietervergleich.de

usenet-anbietervergleich.de

321 ms

cookieconsent.min.js

cookieconsent.min.js

18 ms

header.jpg

header.jpg

586 ms

button2.jpg

button2.jpg

118 ms

counter

counter

198 ms

button8.jpg

button8.jpg

216 ms

button5.jpg

button5.jpg

209 ms

buttonB.jpg

buttonB.jpg

217 ms

buttonE.jpg

buttonE.jpg

216 ms

button11.jpg

button11.jpg

218 ms

button30.jpg

button30.jpg

253 ms

button14.jpg

button14.jpg

319 ms

button1A.jpg

button1A.jpg

319 ms

button1D.jpg

button1D.jpg

325 ms

button20.jpg

button20.jpg

325 ms

button33.jpg

button33.jpg

327 ms

button17.jpg

button17.jpg

341 ms

buttonD1.jpg

buttonD1.jpg

424 ms

buttonA1.jpg

buttonA1.jpg

425 ms

button23.jpg

button23.jpg

433 ms

button1.jpg

button1.jpg

440 ms

usenext.jpg

usenext.jpg

805 ms

firstload.jpg

firstload.jpg

1035 ms

usenetnl.jpg

usenetnl.jpg

1060 ms

Usenetserver.jpg

Usenetserver.jpg

1120 ms

stats

stats

196 ms

dark-bottom.css

dark-bottom.css

12 ms

button3.jpg

button3.jpg

116 ms

button4.jpg

button4.jpg

112 ms

button6.jpg

button6.jpg

114 ms

button7.jpg

button7.jpg

114 ms

button9.jpg

button9.jpg

114 ms

buttonA.jpg

buttonA.jpg

108 ms

buttonC.jpg

buttonC.jpg

221 ms

buttonD.jpg

buttonD.jpg

221 ms

buttonF.jpg

buttonF.jpg

225 ms

button10.jpg

button10.jpg

226 ms

button12.jpg

button12.jpg

227 ms

button13.jpg

button13.jpg

225 ms

button15.jpg

button15.jpg

330 ms

button16.jpg

button16.jpg

330 ms

button18.jpg

button18.jpg

340 ms

button19.jpg

button19.jpg

338 ms

button1B.jpg

button1B.jpg

337 ms

button1C.jpg

button1C.jpg

346 ms

button1E.jpg

button1E.jpg

438 ms

button1F.jpg

button1F.jpg

457 ms

button21.jpg

button21.jpg

453 ms

button22.jpg

button22.jpg

454 ms

button24.jpg

button24.jpg

451 ms

button25.jpg

button25.jpg

473 ms

button28.jpg

button28.jpg

545 ms

button29.jpg

button29.jpg

566 ms

buttonB1.jpg

buttonB1.jpg

567 ms

buttonC1.jpg

buttonC1.jpg

567 ms

buttonE1.jpg

buttonE1.jpg

565 ms

buttonF1.jpg

buttonF1.jpg

588 ms

button31.jpg

button31.jpg

655 ms

button32.jpg

button32.jpg

673 ms

button26.jpg

button26.jpg

679 ms

button27.jpg

button27.jpg

679 ms

logo.png

logo.png

17 ms

Accessibility Review

usenet-anbietervergleich.de accessibility score

57

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.

Internationalization and localization

These are opportunities to improve the interpretation of your content by users in different locales.

Impact

Issue

High

<html> element does not have a [lang] attribute

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

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

usenet-anbietervergleich.de best practices score

75

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

SEO Factors

usenet-anbietervergleich.de SEO score

67

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

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    DE

  • Language Claimed

    DE

  • Encoding

    WINDOWS-1252

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Usenet-anbietervergleich.de can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that German is used on the page, and it matches the claimed language. Our system also found out that Usenet-anbietervergleich.de main page’s claimed encoding is windows-1252. Changing it to UTF-8 can be a good choice, as this format is commonly used for encoding all over the web and thus their visitors won’t have any troubles with symbol transcription or reading.

Social Sharing Optimization

usenet-anbietervergleich.de

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