2.8 sec in total
245 ms
2.2 sec
287 ms
Click here to check amazing Foodwatch content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about foodwatch.com
foodwatch is an independent, non-profit organisation that exposes food-industry practices that are not in the interests of consumers.
Visit foodwatch.comWe analyzed Foodwatch.com page load time and found that the first response time was 245 ms and then it took 2.5 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 45% of websites can load faster.
foodwatch.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value2.3 s
76/100
10%
Value3.8 s
55/100
25%
Value4.9 s
66/100
10%
Value130 ms
97/100
30%
Value0.725
7/100
15%
Value4.0 s
88/100
10%
245 ms
155 ms
83 ms
306 ms
161 ms
Our browser made a total of 65 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 0% of them (0 request) were addressed to the original Foodwatch.com, 5% (3 requests) were made to S.ytimg.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to Use.typekit.net. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (701 ms) relates to the external source Foodwatch.org.
Page size can be reduced by 731.3 kB (56%)
1.3 MB
580.5 kB
In fact, the total size of Foodwatch.com main page is 1.3 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. 65% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 512.0 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 16.2 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 16.2 kB or 74% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 29.2 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. Foodwatch images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 333.4 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. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 333.4 kB or 65% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 352.5 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. Foodwatch.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 352.5 kB or 84% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 40 (67%)
60
20
The browser has sent 60 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Foodwatch. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 21 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 14 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
245 ms
psx2bzw.js
155 ms
stylesheet_7592150310.css
83 ms
jquery-1.7.x-1.8.x-1.2.x.js
306 ms
colorbox.css
161 ms
socialshareprivacy.css
164 ms
cloud-carousel.1.0.5.js
164 ms
jquery.tools.min.js
165 ms
ZeroClipboard.js
165 ms
doubletaptogo.js
229 ms
jquery.charCount.js
244 ms
json2.js
246 ms
slick.min.js
244 ms
artnology.js
245 ms
slider.js
350 ms
mobile-navigation.js
351 ms
theme-navigation.js
352 ms
jquery.colorbox-min.js
354 ms
layout_homepage_template.css
352 ms
jquery.socialshareprivacy.js
392 ms
jquery.equalHeights.js
392 ms
d
329 ms
base.css
86 ms
basemod.css
87 ms
content.css
256 ms
buttons.css
81 ms
mobile-navigation.css
82 ms
slick.css
88 ms
slick-theme.css
253 ms
print.css
253 ms
7fthixcwCVo
68 ms
hand_engl.png
267 ms
x.gif
264 ms
de.gif
264 ms
fr.gif
265 ms
nl.gif
260 ms
logo_foodwatch_en.png
261 ms
foodwatch_europe_slider_530x290_02.jpg
701 ms
RTEmagicC_flag_germany_01.png.png
354 ms
RTEmagicC_flag_netherlands_50.png.png
374 ms
RTEmagicC_flag_france_50.png.png
373 ms
nahrungsmittel_poker_290_01.jpg
647 ms
www-embed-player-vflfNyN_r.css
26 ms
www-embed-player.js
41 ms
base.js
66 ms
ga.js
121 ms
bg_body_std.png
119 ms
bg_topnav_search.png
120 ms
bg_pipes.png
228 ms
bg_focusbox.png
224 ms
sprites_ahrefs.png
278 ms
bg_focusbox_video.png
227 ms
counters.json
233 ms
localstorage-secure-helper.html
403 ms
overlay.png
265 ms
7fthixcwCVo
164 ms
sprites.png
268 ms
65sYhlM3P+amO8hnQpQAAAA
8 ms
65sYhlM3P+amO8hnQpQAAAA
8 ms
__utm.gif
11 ms
p.gif
164 ms
fBnyGA8Aionz5086-mElmoOSPUuyQ1M9Un647_EjucU.js
20 ms
ad_status.js
17 ms
zN7GBFwfMP4uA6AR0HCoLQ.ttf
8 ms
RxZJdnzeo3R5zSexge8UUaCWcynf_cDxXwCLxiixG1c.ttf
11 ms
foodwatch.com accessibility score
Contrast
These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.
Impact
Issue
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
Links do not have a discernible name
foodwatch.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
foodwatch.com SEO score
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
Document uses legible font sizes
Tap targets are not sized appropriately
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Foodwatch.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 Foodwatch.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.
foodwatch.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Foodwatch. Lack of Open Graph description can be counter-productive for their social media presence, as such a description allows converting a website homepage (or other pages) into good-looking, rich and well-structured posts, when it is being shared on Facebook and other social media. For example, adding the following code snippet into HTML <head> tag will help to represent this web page correctly in social networks: