URL: https://nr4.be/
Date: 09/06/24 09:30:47

Webpage Performance Test Result

Settings: Desktopv128CableFrankfurt, Germany
More
- Test runs: 1
- Connectivity: 5000/1000 Kbps, 28ms Latency
- Custom Metrics
Share

Performance Summary

Jump to Opportunities by Category:

Is it Quick? Not bad...

This site was quick to connect and deliver initial code. It began rendering content very quickly. There were 5 render-blocking requests. The largest content rendered quickly.

Opportunities 8
Tips 8
Pro Experiments 11

Is it Usable? Needs Improvement.

This site had good layout stability. It took a long time to become interactive. It had 4 accessibility issues, 2 critical. Some HTML was generated after delivery, potentially delaying usability.

Opportunities 4
Tips 4
Pro Experiments 4

Is it Resilient? Not bad...

This site had 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 2
Tips 2
Pro Experiments 8

You have Free Experiments Available! Try them now!

Page Performance Metrics

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
Time to First Byte	Start Render	First Contentful Paint	Speed Index	Largest Contentful Paint	Cumulative Layout Shift	Total Blocking Time	Page Weight
.261S	1.000S	.945S	1.573S	1.429S	.016	1.817S	2,792KB
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)

Repeat View
Time to First Byte	Start Render	First Contentful Paint	Speed Index	Largest Contentful Paint	Cumulative Layout Shift	Total Blocking Time	Page Weight
.269S	1.500S	1.396S	1.530S	1.396S	0	1.185S	173KB
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)

Real-World Usage Metrics

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

(Collected anonymously by Chrome browser from August 8, 2024 to September 4, 2024 | Full Report)

First Contentful Paint (FCP)

.95S (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

.01S worse than this WPT test run's first view (.95S). Why?

Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)

.98S (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

.45S better than this WPT test run's first view (1.43S). Why?

Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)

0.00 (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

100%
0%
0%

0.016 better than this WPT test run's first view (0.016). Why?

Time to First Byte (TTFB)

.38S (good)

At 75th percentile of visits.

.12S worse than this WPT test run's first view (.26S). Why?

Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

.05S (good)

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.

Individual Runs

Waterfall

Screenshot

Video

First View
(5.896s)

Timeline (view)
Processing Breakdown

Trace (view)

Filmstrip View
-
Watch Video

Repeat View
(1.717s)

Timeline (view)
Processing Breakdown

Trace (view)

Filmstrip View
-
Watch Video

Content Breakdown