Tools & Wizards About Us
whatbrandreview.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 56

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    72% of other websites

  • 94

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 83% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 98

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    92% of websites

whatbrandreview.com

Completely Delicious - A little sweeter every day

Page Load Speed

940 ms in total

First Response

112 ms

Resources Loaded

607 ms

Page Rendered

221 ms

whatbrandreview.com screenshot

About Website

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

We put D2C brands under the microscope and objectively view all of the facts with all variables considered.

Visit whatbrandreview.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Whatbrandreview.com page load time and found that the first response time was 112 ms and then it took 828 ms to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 15% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

whatbrandreview.com performance score

56

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.6 s

63/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value4.2 s

43/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value2.8 s

96/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value950 ms

29/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value6.7 s

57/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

whatbrandreview.com

112 ms

whatbrandreview.com

130 ms

js

53 ms

slick.css

26 ms

slick-theme.css

29 ms

Our browser made a total of 39 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 79% of them (31 requests) were addressed to the original Whatbrandreview.com, 13% (5 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com and 5% (2 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (193 ms) relates to the external source Googletagmanager.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 74.3 kB (13%)

Content Size

558.4 kB

After Optimization

484.1 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Whatbrandreview.com main page is 558.4 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 429.0 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-81%

Potential reduce by 51.4 kB

  • Original 63.4 kB
  • After minification 56.1 kB
  • After compression 12.0 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 7.3 kB, which is 11% 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 51.4 kB or 81% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-2%

Potential reduce by 7.5 kB

  • Original 429.0 kB
  • After minification 421.5 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. Whatbrandreview images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 55 B

  • Original 25.3 kB
  • After minification 25.3 kB
  • After compression 25.3 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

-38%

Potential reduce by 15.4 kB

  • Original 40.7 kB
  • After minification 25.4 kB
  • After compression 25.3 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. Whatbrandreview.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 15.4 kB or 38% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 22 (59%)

Requests Now

37

After Optimization

15

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 37 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Whatbrandreview. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 15 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 9 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

whatbrandreview.com

whatbrandreview.com

112 ms

whatbrandreview.com

whatbrandreview.com

130 ms

js

js

53 ms

slick.css

slick.css

26 ms

slick-theme.css

slick-theme.css

29 ms

cdfa4036ef.js

cdfa4036ef.js

72 ms

style.min.css

style.min.css

29 ms

frontend.min.css

frontend.min.css

32 ms

flatpickr.min.css

flatpickr.min.css

33 ms

select2.min.css

select2.min.css

23 ms

style.base.css

style.base.css

35 ms

style.css

style.css

51 ms

new.css

new.css

42 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

39 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

70 ms

flatpickr.min.js

flatpickr.min.js

49 ms

select2.min.js

select2.min.js

49 ms

js

js

131 ms

slick.min.js

slick.min.js

186 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

118 ms

owl.carousel.min.js

owl.carousel.min.js

119 ms

common.js

common.js

121 ms

js

js

123 ms

analytics.js

analytics.js

119 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

118 ms

js

js

193 ms

cropped-whatbrandreview-logo.png

cropped-whatbrandreview-logo.png

81 ms

soylent-review-is-it-really-good-360x394.png

soylent-review-is-it-really-good-360x394.png

80 ms

bombas-socks-360x394.png

bombas-socks-360x394.png

82 ms

skims-vs-spanx-shapewear-360x394.jpg

skims-vs-spanx-shapewear-360x394.jpg

184 ms

smile-icon.png

smile-icon.png

81 ms

jaxxon-review-360x394.png

jaxxon-review-360x394.png

185 ms

duke-cannon-vs-drsquatch-360x394.png

duke-cannon-vs-drsquatch-360x394.png

82 ms

moon-pod-vs-lovesac-vs-yogibo-which-is-the-best-bean-bag-360x394.jpeg

moon-pod-vs-lovesac-vs-yogibo-which-is-the-best-bean-bag-360x394.jpeg

82 ms

warby-parker-vs-zenni-eyeglasses-360x394.jpg

warby-parker-vs-zenni-eyeglasses-360x394.jpg

185 ms

bollbranch-vs-brooklinen-cover-360x394.png

bollbranch-vs-brooklinen-cover-360x394.png

186 ms

dropps-review-360x394.png

dropps-review-360x394.png

82 ms

our-criteria.jpg

our-criteria.jpg

83 ms

collect

collect

52 ms

Accessibility Review

whatbrandreview.com accessibility score

94

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

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

whatbrandreview.com best practices score

83

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

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

whatbrandreview.com SEO score

98

Search Engine Optimization Advices

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 Whatbrandreview.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 Whatbrandreview.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

whatbrandreview.com

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