Comparing website speed between your site and competitors, or between before-and-after versions of the same site, reveals exactly where you stand and quantifies the impact of every performance improvement you ship.
Loading Website Speed Test…
Compare multiple URLs side by side
Benchmark against competitors
Before/after improvement tracking
No sign-up required
Drop the Website Speed Test into any page — blog post, product docs, intranet, school portal — with a single line of HTML. Your visitors get the full tool, processed entirely in their browser. No backend, no uploads, no signup.
Embed code
<iframe
src="https://www.fixtools.io/web-tools/website-speed-test?embed=1"
width="100%"
height="780"
frameborder="0"
style="border:0;border-radius:16px;max-width:900px;"
title="Website Speed Test by FixTools"
loading="lazy"
allow="clipboard-write"
></iframe>Attribution-friendly: a small "Powered by FixTools" link appears in the embed footer.
Speed comparison testing serves two distinct purposes: competitive benchmarking against rival sites and before/after improvement validation against your own previous baseline. Competitive benchmarking involves testing your site and your top three to five competitors with the same tool under the same conditions and comparing scores across multiple page types. This reveals whether your speed disadvantage is relative, meaning you are slower than competitors, or absolute, meaning everyone in your category scores poorly and there is a white-space opportunity for the first site to invest seriously in performance. A site sitting at position 4 to 6 for its primary keyword while scoring 45 on mobile Lighthouse, with positions 1 to 3 scoring 65 to 75, has clear evidence that speed is contributing to the ranking gap and that a focused optimisation programme could move the needle.
Before/after comparison testing validates that performance improvements actually delivered measurable gains rather than producing a placebo effect on the team's mood. When you deploy optimisations such as compressing images, enabling caching, deferring scripts, or moving to a new host, you need evidence beyond "Lighthouse score went from 60 to 75 in one run." WebPageTest's filmstrip and video comparison feature runs two tests in synchronised playback and shows them side by side at each 100ms interval, making the visual improvement unmistakable in a way that score deltas alone cannot communicate. The WebPageTest compare URL feature also provides statistical comparison of all metrics between runs. For continuous deployment environments, tools such as Calibre and SpeedCurve track performance metrics over time and alert when scores regress, creating a permanent record of performance changes correlated with the specific deployments that caused them.
When comparing speeds, control for the variables that can create misleading comparisons and undermine the conclusions you draw. Test competitor sites from the same server location as your own test, choosing US-East for a US audience or a European node for a European audience, because geographic distance to the origin server materially affects every timing metric. Test at the same time of day across all sites, since server load varies meaningfully by hour and by day of week. Test the same page type across sites, because a competitor's homepage may be faster than their product pages if they have only optimised the homepage and the product pages tell the more honest story. Test multiple pages per site, including the homepage, the most important landing page, and the most important blog post, to get a representative picture rather than cherry-picking the fastest or slowest page on each property.
The framing of a comparison matters as much as the raw numbers, particularly when the audience is non-technical stakeholders rather than fellow engineers. A client presentation that simply lists Lighthouse scores fails to communicate why those scores matter or what investment is justified to close the gap. The stronger framing pairs each metric with a business consequence: "Your LCP is 4.1 seconds on mobile while your three closest competitors average 2.3 seconds, which means roughly 80 per cent of mobile visitors abandon before your hero content even appears." That framing turns abstract numbers into a decision-grade signal. Comparison testing is at its most valuable when the comparison is built specifically to support a decision someone needs to make rather than as a generic dashboard nobody reads.
Test multiple URLs and compare their performance scores, load times, and Core Web Vitals results side by side.
Step-by-step guide to website speed comparison:
List the URLs to compare
Gather the URLs of your site and any competitor sites you want to benchmark, taking care to pick comparable page types across the set. Use homepage versus homepage and product page versus product page rather than mixing categories, because page types differ structurally in ways that distort raw score comparisons. Keep the list to a manageable size, typically five to ten URLs per comparison, so the resulting table stays readable and the conclusions stay clear.
Test each URL in sequence
Run the speed test on each URL in sequence within the same testing session, ideally within a thirty-minute window so server-load and CDN-cache conditions remain roughly comparable across the set. Record the performance score, LCP, CLS, INP, and TTFB for each URL in a structured note. Run each URL twice and take the median to suppress single-run variance that could mislead the comparison.
Build a comparison table
Create a simple spreadsheet or table with each URL as a row and each metric as a column, then add conditional formatting that colours best-in-class values green and worst-in-class values red. The visual heatmap immediately surfaces patterns that pure numbers do not, including whether one site dominates across the board or whether different sites lead on different metrics. Save the table with the date so future comparisons can chart trend lines over time.
Identify the biggest gaps
Find the metrics where you lag furthest behind the best-performing competitor and prioritise fixing those first, because closing the largest gaps delivers the biggest perceived improvement per unit of engineering effort. Annotate each gap with the likely root cause based on what the failing metric typically indicates, then translate the prioritised list into a concrete optimisation backlog with named owners and expected delivery dates rather than leaving it as a passive observation.
Common situations where this approach makes a real difference:
Competitive performance audit
An SEO consultant benchmarks a client against four main competitors across homepage, category, and key product detail pages, building a comparison spreadsheet that lays every metric side by side. The client ranks last for performance on every page type tested, with mobile Lighthouse scores roughly 25 points below the best competitor and LCP almost twice as slow. The consultant turns the comparison into a one-page slide that quantifies the gap in plain language, and the resulting business case for a focused performance improvement project is approved by the client within a single meeting where previous abstract pitches had failed.
Before/after performance project
A developer documents performance scores for fifteen high-traffic pages before starting a structured optimisation project, capturing screenshots of each Lighthouse report into a shared folder. After completing the work over the following month, they re-test each page under the same conditions and assemble the before-and-after comparison into a single deck. The visible deltas, including average LCP improvement from 4.8 seconds to 1.9 seconds and mobile score improvement from 44 to 82, give the team an unambiguous record of what was achieved and a baseline against which any future regression can be measured.
Hosting provider decision
A business evaluating two competing hosting providers tests their existing site on both hosting environments before committing to migrate, configuring identical caching and CDN settings on each so the comparison isolates the hosting layer specifically. Comparing TTFB, overall performance scores, and server response under simulated load provides an objective basis for the migration decision that does not rely on marketing promises or anecdotal reports from other customers. The resulting choice is defensible internally and stands up to executive scrutiny because the numbers are reproducible.
Use this to benchmark your site against competitors, to verify the impact of performance improvements, or to compare performance across different pages on your own site.
Get better results with these expert suggestions:
Test competitors on the same page type as yours
Comparing your product page to a competitor's homepage is not a fair comparison and produces misleading conclusions. Product pages have more dynamic content, larger images, more complex layouts, and typically heavier JavaScript bundles than homepages do. Always compare like for like: product against product, blog against blog, and homepage against homepage. The comparison is only actionable if the pages being measured serve the same purpose and contain similar content types, because the structural differences otherwise dominate the score deltas you observe.
Use WebPageTest filmstrip for before/after validation
The WebPageTest filmstrip comparison shows your page rendering at each 100ms interval before and after an optimisation, played back side by side in synchronised frames. This visual evidence is more compelling to non-technical stakeholders than score changes alone, because you can see exactly at what point content appears in each version and how much earlier it renders after the optimisation. Use this view for client presentations, internal performance reports, and any conversation where the audience needs to feel the difference rather than just read a number.
Track performance over time with a dashboard
Single point-in-time comparisons miss performance regressions caused by new plugin installations, code deployments, or third-party script updates that creep in between major audit cycles. Set up weekly automated speed monitoring using the PageSpeed Insights API, SpeedCurve, or Calibre to track performance trends over weeks and months. A performance dashboard shows whether you are improving over time or whether small regressions are quietly eroding hard-won gains, and it gives you the early-warning signal needed to investigate before the regression compounds.
Check HTTP Archive data for industry context
The HTTP Archive at httparchive.org aggregates performance data from millions of sites broken down by technology stack including WordPress, Shopify, React, and others. Use their Technology reports to see median performance for sites using the same platform as yours, which gives you industry-realistic context for setting targets. If your Shopify store scores 45 on mobile and the median Shopify store scores 42, you are at or above average for your stack and the marginal cost of pushing further may not be justified by the marginal ranking gain.
Test all sites under the same conditions
For a fair comparison, test all URLs in the same session on the same tool. Scores vary between tools and test sessions due to server load and network conditions.
Focus on relative performance, not absolute scores
A score of 82 vs 65 represents a meaningful difference. The exact numbers matter less than the gap, understanding which site has a performance advantage and by how much.
Test the same page type across competitors
Compare homepage to homepage, product page to product page. Comparing a simple landing page on one site to a feature-heavy product page on another gives a misleading comparison.
More use-case guides for the same tool:
Other tools you might find useful:
Open the full Website Speed Test — free, no account needed, works on any device.
Open Website Speed Test →Free · No account needed · Works on any device