Webpage Performance Test Result

Settings: motog4v1174GVirginia USA
More
- First View only
- Test runs: 3
- Connectivity: 9000/9000 Kbps, 170ms Latency
- Custom Metrics
Share

Performance Summary

Jump to Opportunities by Category:

Is it Quick? Needs Improvement.

This site was quick to connect and deliver initial code. It began rendering content with little delay. There were 85 render-blocking requests. The largest content rendered later than ideal.

Opportunities 9
Tips 9
Pro Experiments 13

Is it Usable? Needs Improvement.

This site had minor layout shifts. It took a long time to become interactive. It had 4 accessibility issues, 3 serious. Some HTML was generated after delivery, potentially delaying usability.

Opportunities 4
Tips 4
Pro Experiments 4

Is it Resilient? Needs Improvement.

This site had many render-blocking 3rd party requests that could be a single point of failure. It had no security issues. Some HTML was generated after delivery, which can cause fragility.

Opportunities 3
Tips 3
Pro Experiments 8

You have Free Experiments Available! Try them now!

Page Performance Metrics (Based on Median Run by:
Speed Index
Cumulative Layout Shift
First Contentful Paint
Largest Contentful Paint
Load Time
Speed Index
Start Render
Time to First Byte
Total Blocking Time
)

Note: Metric availability will vary

Please note: Availability of metrics will vary based on the browser being tested. Also, the way a site performs in some conditions may not predict how well it will perform in others, so we encourage testing in a variety of browsers, devices, & locations.

First View (Run 1)
Time to First Byte	Start Render	First Contentful Paint	Speed Index	Largest Contentful Paint	Cumulative Layout Shift	Total Blocking Time	Page Weight
.849S	3.200S	3.150S	11.256S	15.571S	.014	4.858S	2,666KB
When did the content start downloading?	When did pixels first start to appear?	How soon did text and images start to appear?	How soon did the page look usable?	When did the largest visible content finish loading?	How much did the design shift while loading?	Was the main thread blocked?	How many bytes downloaded?

Visual Page Loading Process (Explore)

Compare First Views Plot Full Results

Real-World Usage Metrics

Compare this WebPageTest run with browser-collected performance data for this site.

(Collected anonymously by Chrome browser from August 28, 2023 to September 24, 2023 | Full Report)

First Contentful Paint (FCP)

2.64S (fair)

At 75th percentile of visits.

.51S better than this WPT test run's first view (3.15S). Why?

Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)

4.05S (poor)

At 75th percentile of visits.

11.52S better than this WPT test run's first view (15.57S). Why?

Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)

0.07 (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

0.056 worse than this WPT test run's first view (0.014). Why?

First Input Delay (FID)

.02S (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

Field metric only, no WPT test run data.

Time to First Byte (TTFB)

1.64S (fair)

At 75th percentile of visits.

.80S worse than this WPT test run's first view (.85S). Why?

Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

.26S (fair)

At 75th percentile of visits.

Field metric only, no WPT test run data.

Note: Why can real browser usage metrics vary from test run metrics?

Variance between your test run and real world usage is expected because a WebPageTest run uses a specific connection speed, and real world data spans all connection speeds. To closely match the p75 user in WebPageTest, try rerunning your test using a different connection speed.