default template Google PageSpeed Score under 90

Discussion regarding Joomla! 3.x Performance issues.
Post Reply
Joomla! Fledgling
Joomla! Fledgling
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 10:09 am

default template Google PageSpeed Score under 90

Post by juser9999 » Mon May 25, 2020 10:23 am

I am testing joomla for some projects. During my tests, the stock Joomla installation with default template mostly gives the Google PageSpeed Score under 90. My question is why it does not give something close to 100? Is it a Joomla lack? or hosting is the culprit?

If blank Joomla gives less then 90, then after installing extensions like Virtuemart, JomSocial, K2 etc. with a module for slideshow I am afraid it will be dropped badly.

Is there any way to overcome this? For highly dynamic websites caching does not look like a good solution. Is it must to use Joomla Cache? May be an extension can work as a silver bullet to increase the score. Your thoughts are welcome.

I think it is important to get a good google pagespeed score to rank better.
Last edited by mandville on Tue May 26, 2020 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: retitled to be more descriptive,

Joomla! Virtuoso
Joomla! Virtuoso
Posts: 4211
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: South coast, UK

Re: Why is it not perfect?

Post by gws » Mon May 25, 2020 10:35 am

Try testing at gtmetrix and it will tell you where any problems are in the page loading.
Also the use of extensions once configured properly on a decent server wont affect page speed too bad.

User avatar
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 6467
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:35 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why is it not perfect?

Post by AMurray » Mon May 25, 2020 10:14 pm

Just guessing here but many factors may influence those sorts of performance testing scores (and different services might give different results).

I don't know for sure if external servers e.g. Bootstrap or Google Fonts loaded via CDN's could influence loading times. Perhaps even a shared server vs VPS or dedicated server could influence test results.

In any case I think "close to 90" is a pretty good score. My own sites score about 45 / 100 (bad, I know, but they are not running the basis joomla install).

I was testing one the other day for a reply on this forum that scored 8 / 100, so I think your scoring close to 90 is "pretty perfect".

Things to think about are how to optimise your images/photos etc for best viewing quality balanced with lowest file size amongst other things of course.
A Murray
Help you I can, yes!. Post your question, you should. Keep it on topic you must!
Use the Forc....Forum Post Assistant my young Padawan!

Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:29 pm

Re: default template Google PageSpeed Score under 90

Post by helpwithjoomla » Tue May 26, 2020 11:39 pm

All Content Management Systems are susceptible to poor PageSpeed scores. The variety of extensions, plugins, templates and themes can all affect PageSpeed.

How all the above items are coded can impact your score. If they are coded poorly, your score will drop.

In my experience, the more Extensions you have installed the harder it is to get a good score.

When it comes to templates, I prefer custom over purchased. Custom templates are much cleaner and usually provide better scores as you can take pagespeed into consideration when creating the template.

Both PageSpeed and GTMetrix will give you suggestions about how to improve a PageSpeed score.

One of my favorite PageSpeed tools is JCH Optimize. It does a good job of giving a bump up to your score.

Finally, I agree with A Murray. A score close to 90 is good for a content management system.

And here's an answer to this question:
I don't know for sure if external servers e.g. Bootstrap or Google Fonts loaded via CDN's could influence loading times.
It does. Any pull from a third party web site will usually cause a score to drop though there are a variety of ways to address this.
Joomla Developers Available To Help With Joomla!

Post Reply

Return to “Performance - Joomla! 3.x”