Proof, not claims
This site, measured by the people visiting it.
Anyone can post a Lighthouse screenshot taken on a fast laptop. These are Core Web Vitals collected from real visits to this site, reported at the 75th percentile over a 28-day window — the same measure Google uses to judge a page.
LCP
348 ms Good is under 2.50 sINP
24 ms Good is under 200 msCLS
0.00 Good is under 0.10FCP
340 ms Good is under 1.80 sTTFB
133 ms Good is under 800 ms75th percentile across 35 readings from real visits over the last 28 days. Collected by this site, from this site — no lab score, no screenshot. Logged-in views are excluded.
How the numbers stay this low
None of this is exotic. It is the same set of decisions I would make on your site.
- No jQuery, and barely any JavaScript. The whole front end is about 3KB gzipped. The menu, the accordion and the testimonial slider are CSS — libraries are the usual reason interactions feel slow.
- Critical CSS is inlined. The top of every page paints without waiting for a stylesheet request. The rest loads without blocking.
- No web fonts. A downloaded typeface costs a request and a swap that shifts text unless it is metric-matched. The system stack renders instantly and cannot cause layout shift.
- Every image has width and height. That is most of what keeps Cumulative Layout Shift at zero. The hero image is marked high priority and never lazy-loaded.
- The server does its share. HTTP/2, nginx page caching for anonymous visitors, and assets pre-compressed at build time rather than on every request.
If your site is missing most of these, the gap between where it is and where it could be is usually larger than you would guess.
Want your Core Web Vitals to look like this?
Send me a URL and I will tell you what is actually costing you, before you commit to anything.