Tools & Wizards About Us
whichfansite.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 52

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    69% of other websites

  • 78

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 45% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 92

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    74% of websites

whichfansite.com

Compare OnlyFans Alternatives & Similar Sites | WhichFanSite

Page Load Speed

4.1 sec in total

First Response

549 ms

Resources Loaded

2.6 sec

Page Rendered

939 ms

whichfansite.com screenshot

About Website

Visit whichfansite.com now to see the best up-to-date Which Fans Ite content and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about whichfansite.com

Searching for an alternative to OnlyFans? Look no further! We review the best sites like OnlyFans to make money! ᐉᐉ ENTER NOW!

Visit whichfansite.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Whichfansite.com page load time and found that the first response time was 549 ms and then it took 3.6 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 60% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

whichfansite.com performance score

52

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value3.6 s

32/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value13.3 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value3.8 s

84/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value320 ms

77/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value11.5 s

18/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

whichfansite.com

549 ms

js

70 ms

style.min.css

387 ms

aces-style.css

370 ms

aces-media.css

96 ms

Our browser made a total of 66 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 83% of them (55 requests) were addressed to the original Whichfansite.com, 5% (3 requests) were made to Static.addtoany.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (640 ms) belongs to the original domain Whichfansite.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 167.8 kB (2%)

Content Size

8.9 MB

After Optimization

8.7 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Whichfansite.com main page is 8.9 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 50% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 8.5 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-86%

Potential reduce by 142.5 kB

  • Original 165.3 kB
  • After minification 156.7 kB
  • After compression 22.8 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 142.5 kB or 86% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 11.8 kB

  • Original 8.5 MB
  • After minification 8.5 MB

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. Which Fans Ite images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-4%

Potential reduce by 6.6 kB

  • Original 169.7 kB
  • After minification 169.6 kB
  • After compression 163.1 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

-11%

Potential reduce by 7.0 kB

  • Original 61.9 kB
  • After minification 61.9 kB
  • After compression 54.8 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. Whichfansite.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 7.0 kB or 11% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 35 (54%)

Requests Now

65

After Optimization

30

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 65 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Which Fans Ite. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 24 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 13 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

whichfansite.com

whichfansite.com

549 ms

js

js

70 ms

style.min.css

style.min.css

387 ms

aces-style.css

aces-style.css

370 ms

aces-media.css

aces-media.css

96 ms

vscf-style.min.css

vscf-style.min.css

373 ms

wppopups.css

wppopups.css

373 ms

screen.min.css

screen.min.css

97 ms

wppopups-base.css

wppopups-base.css

147 ms

css2

css2

36 ms

owl.carousel.min.css

owl.carousel.min.css

177 ms

animate.css

animate.css

205 ms

style.css

style.css

257 ms

media.css

media.css

281 ms

addtoany.min.css

addtoany.min.css

301 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

350 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

350 ms

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

376 ms

regenerator-runtime.min.js

regenerator-runtime.min.js

377 ms

wp-polyfill.min.js

wp-polyfill.min.js

640 ms

hooks.min.js

hooks.min.js

624 ms

page.js

page.js

35 ms

addtoany.min.js

addtoany.min.js

623 ms

wppopups.js

wppopups.js

407 ms

js

js

45 ms

analytics.js

analytics.js

18 ms

collect

collect

32 ms

collect

collect

28 ms

wppopups.js

wppopups.js

109 ms

vscf-reset.js

vscf-reset.js

321 ms

leaving-notice.js

leaving-notice.js

118 ms

theia-sticky-sidebar.min.js

theia-sticky-sidebar.min.js

119 ms

enable-sticky-sidebar.js

enable-sticky-sidebar.js

144 ms

owl.carousel.min.js

owl.carousel.min.js

147 ms

scripts.js

scripts.js

203 ms

23b8c66013.js

23b8c66013.js

27 ms

js.cookie.min.js

js.cookie.min.js

203 ms

jquery.sticky-kit.min.js

jquery.sticky-kit.min.js

471 ms

front.min.js

front.min.js

471 ms

sites-like-onlyfans-logo-4-177x40.png

sites-like-onlyfans-logo-4-177x40.png

78 ms

small-AdobeStock_166838074.png

small-AdobeStock_166838074.png

251 ms

fansly-review-2-80x80.png

fansly-review-2-80x80.png

77 ms

mym-review-80x80.png

mym-review-80x80.png

77 ms

loyalfans-review-1-80x80.png

loyalfans-review-1-80x80.png

96 ms

manyvids-review-80x80.png

manyvids-review-80x80.png

149 ms

unlockd-review-80x80.png

unlockd-review-80x80.png

149 ms

fancentro-review-80x80.png

fancentro-review-80x80.png

148 ms

admireme-review-80x80.png

admireme-review-80x80.png

95 ms

ifans-review-80x80.png

ifans-review-80x80.png

160 ms

foxy-review-1-80x80.png

foxy-review-1-80x80.png

160 ms

justforfans-review-80x80.png

justforfans-review-80x80.png

153 ms

ismygirl-review-80x80.png

ismygirl-review-80x80.png

153 ms

small-AdobeStock_188177224.png

small-AdobeStock_188177224.png

333 ms

smartmockups_kyuou9kj-scaled.jpg

smartmockups_kyuou9kj-scaled.jpg

258 ms

fansly-review-2-50x50.png

fansly-review-2-50x50.png

182 ms

loyalfans-review-1-50x50.png

loyalfans-review-1-50x50.png

183 ms

unlockd-review-50x50.png

unlockd-review-50x50.png

187 ms

admireme-review-50x50.png

admireme-review-50x50.png

202 ms

sites-like-onlyfans-to-make-money-scaled.jpeg

sites-like-onlyfans-to-make-money-scaled.jpeg

293 ms

AdobeStock_269372403-scaled.jpeg

AdobeStock_269372403-scaled.jpeg

278 ms

mym-review-50x50.png

mym-review-50x50.png

263 ms

foxy-review-1-50x50.png

foxy-review-1-50x50.png

365 ms

Screenshot-2022-01-13-at-13.28.03.png

Screenshot-2022-01-13-at-13.28.03.png

363 ms

sm.25.html

sm.25.html

72 ms

eso.Ep5bSEmr.js

eso.Ep5bSEmr.js

91 ms

font

font

44 ms

Accessibility Review

whichfansite.com accessibility score

78

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.

Best practices

These items highlight common accessibility best practices.

Impact

Issue

High

[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.

Best Practices

whichfansite.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

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Browser errors were logged to the console

High

Page has valid source maps

SEO Factors

whichfansite.com SEO score

92

Search Engine Optimization Advices

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 Whichfansite.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 Whichfansite.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

whichfansite.com

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