Tools & Wizards About Us
qualitybearing.in screenshot

Report Summary

  • 15

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    27% of other websites

  • 69

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 34% of websites

  • 75

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    35% of websites

  • 91

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    70% of websites

qualitybearing.in

Quolity Tools & Bearings Centers

Page Load Speed

2.4 sec in total

First Response

129 ms

Resources Loaded

1.3 sec

Page Rendered

1 sec

qualitybearing.in screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Qualitybearing content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about qualitybearing.in

Quolity Tools & Bearings Centres proven market leader in supply of world-class bearings in the country.

Visit qualitybearing.in

Key Findings

We analyzed Qualitybearing.in page load time and found that the first response time was 129 ms and then it took 2.3 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.

Performance Metrics

qualitybearing.in performance score

15

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value5.5 s

6/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value23.2 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value8.3 s

19/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value750 ms

39/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.871

4/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value23.3 s

1/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

qualitybearing.in

129 ms

layers.css

100 ms

settings.css

65 ms

navigation.css

269 ms

style.css

328 ms

Our browser made a total of 98 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 85% of them (83 requests) were addressed to the original Qualitybearing.in, 7% (7 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com and 2% (2 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (432 ms) relates to the external source Fonts.gstatic.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 1.7 MB (50%)

Content Size

3.5 MB

After Optimization

1.8 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Qualitybearing.in main page is 3.5 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. 80% of websites need less resources to load and that’s why Accessify’s recommendations for optimization and resource minification can be helpful for this project. Images take 1.5 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-86%

Potential reduce by 45.4 kB

  • Original 53.1 kB
  • After minification 45.7 kB
  • After compression 7.6 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. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 7.3 kB, which is 14% of the original size. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 45.4 kB or 86% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-6%

Potential reduce by 95.8 kB

  • Original 1.5 MB
  • After minification 1.4 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. Qualitybearing images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-78%

Potential reduce by 988.3 kB

  • Original 1.3 MB
  • After minification 949.0 kB
  • After compression 271.0 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 988.3 kB or 78% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-88%

Potential reduce by 608.4 kB

  • Original 693.9 kB
  • After minification 590.6 kB
  • After compression 85.4 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. Qualitybearing.in needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 608.4 kB or 88% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 47 (56%)

Requests Now

84

After Optimization

37

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 84 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Qualitybearing. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 31 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 18 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

qualitybearing.in

qualitybearing.in

129 ms

layers.css

layers.css

100 ms

settings.css

settings.css

65 ms

navigation.css

navigation.css

269 ms

style.css

style.css

328 ms

responsive.css

responsive.css

227 ms

js

js

68 ms

jquery.v1.12.4.min.js

jquery.v1.12.4.min.js

88 ms

bootstrap.min.js

bootstrap.min.js

89 ms

jquery-core-plugins.js

jquery-core-plugins.js

120 ms

main.js

main.js

104 ms

jquery.themepunch.tools.min.js

jquery.themepunch.tools.min.js

130 ms

jquery.themepunch.revolution.min.js

jquery.themepunch.revolution.min.js

149 ms

slider_v1.js

slider_v1.js

144 ms

revolution.extension.actions.min.js

revolution.extension.actions.min.js

151 ms

revolution.extension.carousel.min.js

revolution.extension.carousel.min.js

167 ms

revolution.extension.kenburn.min.js

revolution.extension.kenburn.min.js

173 ms

revolution.extension.layeranimation.min.js

revolution.extension.layeranimation.min.js

173 ms

revolution.extension.migration.min.js

revolution.extension.migration.min.js

192 ms

revolution.extension.navigation.min.js

revolution.extension.navigation.min.js

196 ms

revolution.extension.parallax.min.js

revolution.extension.parallax.min.js

193 ms

revolution.extension.slideanims.min.js

revolution.extension.slideanims.min.js

216 ms

jquery.js

jquery.js

215 ms

popper.min.js

popper.min.js

219 ms

bootstrap.min.js

bootstrap.min.js

274 ms

jquery-ui.js

jquery-ui.js

263 ms

jquery.fancybox.js

jquery.fancybox.js

239 ms

owl.js

owl.js

244 ms

appear.js

appear.js

260 ms

wow.js

wow.js

267 ms

scrollbar.js

scrollbar.js

270 ms

validate.js

validate.js

281 ms

paroller.js

paroller.js

286 ms

custom-script.js

custom-script.js

290 ms

css

css

30 ms

css

css

52 ms

bootstrap.min.css

bootstrap.min.css

33 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

29 ms

flaticon-default.css

flaticon-default.css

45 ms

webexindustryicon.css

webexindustryicon.css

26 ms

style.css

style.css

45 ms

owl.carousel.min.css

owl.carousel.min.css

43 ms

magnific-popup.css

magnific-popup.css

52 ms

animate.css

animate.css

74 ms

custom-animation.css

custom-animation.css

53 ms

meanmenu.min.css

meanmenu.min.css

49 ms

flaticon.css

flaticon.css

53 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

29 ms

p1.png

p1.png

39 ms

1.png

1.png

42 ms

p2.png

p2.png

39 ms

about.png

about.png

75 ms

2.png

2.png

42 ms

3.png

3.png

41 ms

4.png

4.png

54 ms

5.png

5.png

52 ms

1.png

1.png

54 ms

2.png

2.png

50 ms

3.png

3.png

54 ms

4.png

4.png

72 ms

5.png

5.png

76 ms

6.png

6.png

75 ms

p1.jpg

p1.jpg

78 ms

p2.jpg

p2.jpg

80 ms

p3.jpg

p3.jpg

118 ms

p4.jpg

p4.jpg

176 ms

p5.jpg

p5.jpg

176 ms

p6.jpg

p6.jpg

178 ms

p11.png

p11.png

176 ms

91 ms

157 ms

dots.png

dots.png

62 ms

abs-bg7.png

abs-bg7.png

63 ms

dot-map-cta.png

dot-map-cta.png

63 ms

jizaRExUiTo99u79D0KEwA.ttf

jizaRExUiTo99u79D0KEwA.ttf

429 ms

jizfRExUiTo99u79B_mh0O6tKA.ttf

jizfRExUiTo99u79B_mh0O6tKA.ttf

432 ms

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKdFvXDXbtY.ttf

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKdFvXDXbtY.ttf

431 ms

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKeiunDXbtY.ttf

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKeiunDXbtY.ttf

430 ms

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKfsunDXbtY.ttf

nuFvD-vYSZviVYUb_rj3ij__anPXJzDwcbmjWBN2PKfsunDXbtY.ttf

429 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

356 ms

Flaticon.svg

Flaticon.svg

410 ms

Flaticon.woff

Flaticon.woff

354 ms

flaticon-default.svg

flaticon-default.svg

410 ms

flaticon-default.woff

flaticon-default.woff

355 ms

jizYRExUiTo99u79D0e0x8mN.ttf

jizYRExUiTo99u79D0e0x8mN.ttf

431 ms

jizdRExUiTo99u79D0e8fOydLxUY.ttf

jizdRExUiTo99u79D0e8fOydLxUY.ttf

431 ms

webexicon.ttf

webexicon.ttf

355 ms

adep764jdu

adep764jdu

250 ms

banner4.webp

banner4.webp

134 ms

banner2.webp

banner2.webp

182 ms

banner1.webp

banner1.webp

135 ms

banner3.jpg

banner3.jpg

175 ms

ac2.png

ac2.png

133 ms

abs-bg4.png

abs-bg4.png

135 ms

pattern3.png

pattern3.png

140 ms

footer-bg.png

footer-bg.png

141 ms

Flaticon.ttf

Flaticon.ttf

107 ms

clarity.js

clarity.js

30 ms

Accessibility Review

qualitybearing.in accessibility score

69

Accessibility Issues

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

High

Buttons do not have an accessible name

High

Links do not have a discernible name

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.

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order

Tables and lists

These are opportunities to improve the experience of reading tabular or list data using assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

Lists do not contain only <li> elements and script supporting elements (<script> and <template>).

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

qualitybearing.in best practices score

75

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

High

Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript

SEO Factors

qualitybearing.in SEO score

91

Search Engine Optimization Advices

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 Qualitybearing.in 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 Qualitybearing.in 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

qualitybearing.in

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