The sum of transfer size kilobytes of all HTML documents requested by the page. The number of HTML documents requested by the page. The sum of transfer size kilobytes of all external images requested by the page. An external image is identified as a resource with the png , gif , jpg , jpeg , webp , ico , or svg file extensions or a MIME type containing image. See also: State of Images. The number of external images requested by the page.
The sum of transfer size kilobytes of all external scripts requested by the page. An external script is identified as a resource with the js or json file extensions or a MIME type containing script or json. See also: State of JavaScript. The number of external scripts requested by the page. Today the average webpage is about the same size, data-wise, as the classic computer game Doom , according to software engineer Ronan Cremin.
A compressed copy of the installer for the shareware version of Doom takes up about 2. Today's average webpage, meanwhile, requires users to download about 2. That's not totally analogous comparison, but it does illustrate the web's growing obesity problem.
Many sites are even larger than the average. WIRED's homepage is about 7. Individual pages are a bit lighter—our story on giving up JavaScript for a week weighs in at just 3MB—but are still big enough to require multiple disks. So how did we get here? Key Takeaway: The average page loading speed for a web page is On average, pages take To answer this question, we determined the CMS used for all of the sites in our data set.
And for mobile page speed, Squarespace is 1… with Adobe Experience Manager and Weebly rounding out the top 3. It has other advantages like ease of use, a massive library of plugins and SEO that make it the go-to CMS for many site owners. However, when looking strictly at website loading speed, it appears that other CMSs have a distinct edge over WordPress.
WordPress and Wix rank near the bottom. However, CDNs appear to be more helpful on desktop compared to mobile. There may be scripts and other assets loading off-screen. We discovered that page size bytesTotal had a significant effect on mobile and desktop Visually Complete load times. With page size coming in as a close second. This may mean deleting third party scripts.
Or compressing images. The exact steps will depend on your site. However, CDNs have a much bigger impact on desktop loading. For mobile, total page size is the most important factor for Visually Complete load times. When it comes to Fully Loaded page speed, the total size of a page is by far the most important factor on desktop and mobile.
Unlike many of the other metrics that we analyzed, desktop and mobile Fully Loaded seem to be impacted by the same set of variables namely, page size and total HTML requests. Compressing images, caching and other steps usually reduce how long it takes a page to load. But they can only go so far. And the more assets there are to load, the longer it will take for the page to load. CDNs can improve image load times.
Key Takeaway: Total size impacts Fully Loaded page speed more than any other variable on both desktop and mobile. When it comes to prioritizing what to load on a page and when , JavaScript Frameworks do a lot of the heavy lifting. React is by far the most commonly-used JS Framework TweenMax For sites with lots of small-sized pages, RightJS is your best bet. For websites with mostly large pages, Gatsby looks to be ideal.
Compressing page files on a server is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, compressing files significantly reduces page weight. However, compressing files before sending them from the server entails additional work on the browser, as the client needs to decompress the files before rendering them.
As part of this analysis, we set out to answer the question: does compressing files actually improve page speed? For small pages, lower levels of compression were associated with faster FCP load times. Although the exact distribution between page sizes differed, the takeaway is clear: pages with very low or very high levels of compression load the fastest. In fact, you can see a dip in FCP performance for pages that compress a moderate amount of their files. Therefore, when it comes to improving page speed, super low or super high levels of compression tend to work best.
Low levels of compression reduce the work needed by the browser. And high levels of compression outweigh taxing work on the client side with a smaller payload.
Key Takeaway: Pages with very low or very high compression have better performance vs. Not surprisingly, we found that third-party scripts like Google Analytics, social share buttons and video hosts result in slower FCP times. Our findings are in-line with others like this that discovered that third-party scripts have a massive impact on page speed.
Obviously, the impact depends on the script being used. Certain third-party scripts like Hotjar load relatively quickly. Others, including Salesforce, are notoriously slow. In short, third-party scripts lead to longer load times.
And the more scripts a page has, the slower it tends to load. Key Takeaway: Each 3rd party script used on a page increases page load time by Second, user attention tends to focus on images that appear on a page. And if those images load slowly, this can negatively impact UX. And when we compared these various approaches for Lighthouse speed scores , Responsive Images came out on top. And the results were very similar. Considering that server response time has the greatest impact on TTFB , we analyzed how different hosts performed on that key metric.
And we looked at the percentage that each host appeared in each category. Automattic, Wix and Siteground fared the worst. As you can see, Github performs extremely well on both mobile and desktop.
Which, considering that Github Pages only serve static resources, should come as no surprise. Seravo, Netlify and Weebly round out the top 4. Wix and Automattic are at the bottom of the list. TTFB is just one of many factors to consider when choosing a host. That said, when it comes to fast page load times on desktop and mobile, Github Pages is by far the best option among major hosts.
Key Takeaway: Among major hosting providers, Github and Weebly performed best on desktop. According to our analysis, GitHub and Seravo were the fastest mobile hosts.
However, it should be noted that Github Pages only serves static pages, which gives it an inherent advantage over the other hosts that we analyzed. Next comes Japan and Germany with fast page speeds that are above the global averages.
Australia, Brazil, and India have speeds that are below global averages. In theory, because it delivers content close to where a user is located, a CDN should improve page speed across the board.
We hypothesized that not all CDNs are created equal. In many cases, using a poorly-optimized CDN can actually slow things down. And when we analyzed the performance of the top 18 of the top CDN providers, we did, in fact, discover a massive difference in performance. Specifically, we noticed that on desktop the best CDN performed 3. Certain CDNs perform significantly better than others.
If you want to learn more about how this analysis was done, feel free to check out our study methods PDF. For me this page loads very fast.
But im curious why you choose to use px wide images when they get displayed at px? For me at least. The downside, as you pointed out, it that they make our pages much bigger… which slows things down. BTW, you can compress images without losing quality… to a point. We use kraken. Hi Brian, your pages are huge! Can you please give a guide on the advanced topics related to site speed or tech SEO or please suggest some good sources to learn these stuff in deep?
Awaiting for the reply!! The site Load crazily fast under ms. Checking woorocket. This was done in Cognito mode in Chrome, which excludes any extensions, to get a true reading. Also, Lightspeed will use a slow 4G network for testing now as a default. However, half the world is still on 3G networks. You can however create a 3G profile to to get a more accurate page load speed from half the world.
Use this as your benchmark. Also, looking further at woorocket, they still have a few things to learn. Interesting study. In most hosting comparison studies I found that Kinsta and Siteground performing better than wpengine. Another popular blogger from UK did a similar test only on hosting and found wpengine towards the bottom and wpxhosting at the top.
This is going to add more confusion for those who are looking for a new webhost. Sorry to but in here but I feel compelled to say. So those that are still using it are either those that cant transfer off it very easily or those that mistakenly believe that it must be popular and so use it now. It does not help that many that still use it are reluctant to admit they are stuck with it. And that is how the myth continues that its a great web site builder.
For many reasons I have found this not be the case. It also depends on your internet speed, ping etc. CDN is definitely a thing for better load time. If your target audience is from all over the world Global then using CDN is much better and it can also reduce server load and at the same time you will be protected your site from DDOS attack. Siteground amongst slowest? Hard to believe. A lot of people may doubt this. However, thanks for the research. To follow up on the Siteground comment — I recently did a little testing of my own for a recent blog post.
The page size was Once I started adding themes and installing plugins, a different story. Hi Taughnee, thanks for sharing that! Super interesting. There are confounding variables at play. Thanks again! We are using Sucuri CDN. I agree! I tested the same thing and I gotta say siteground is super fast and score 99 and , if you start adding themes you gotta play a lot with it to reach a high performance but it worth it.
BTW- Gatsby people! Just you gotta know what you are doing. Do you have experimented with WPEngine and Kinsta hosting? Because both provide managed WordPress hosting. Siteground has the reputation to be amongst the fastest webhosting companies but I experienced the opposite myself too.
Or that all the other plugins they do install ends up slowing things down. What kind of websites did you use in this research. It would be nice to have some examples of websites used in this research…. I recommend reading the PDF methods at the end of the post to learn more about our sample. But SiteGround is worse because it fluctuates — some times out to 1. It is our experience from tuning websites for mobile speed that CDNs slowdown load times. Especially free Cloudflare.
Another awesome analysis Brian! Although I do feel you are giving WordPress a harsh evaluation. While I do believe the WordPress core can always be optimised better for speed, there is always room for improvement, I know for a fact that WordPress can be lightning fast.
As such I feel your analysis reveals that only a quarter of WordPress users are doing the following with their sites: Using a lightweight theme which there are plenty of to choose from , limit the amount of unnecessary plugins and only choose ones that do not negatively impact speed too much, then optimise images and site for speed using compression and speed plugins.
I believe the real reason WordPress is scoring so badly in your reports is the vast amount of inexperienced WordPress users and the plethora of slow loading themes and plugins which is causing bloated websites for those that either do not care or do not know how to correct. Hi Max, thank you! My take is that, yes, that does partly explain the reason that WordPress rated so low in our analysis.
It CAN be fast with the right optimization. But in the wild, WordPress tends to be slow. Every articles you write, have many images which helps the visitors to understand about the content. But, how you can speed the website much faster with rich of visual content? Thanks Diaz. But we do the best we can in terms of compression. Not just image compression.
We also use a great host, a light weight theme… and we have a full-time developer who does great work fine tuning things so the site loads quickly despite out massive pages. Thanks Ryan! I felt the same way, LOL. We do our best with page speed. Working on this study made me want to make site speed a higher priority!
0コメント