I've got 2 almost identical pages: one for brand, and one for category.

Brand looks exactly like category, and has same number of products.

Brand page gets score 64/95, and category gets score 88/80.

There is Amasty FPC installed, and both pages are served from cache, page load time is the same: 0.4 sec.

The only difference I see at pagespeed is this:

  • Brand mobile: PSI estimates this page requires 7 render-blocking round trips and 54 resources (1.2MB) to load.

  • Brand desktop: PSI estimates this page requires 1 render-blocking round trips and 58 resources (1.1MB) to load.

  • Category mobile: PSI estimates this page requires 1 render-blocking round trips and 59 resources (1.2MB) to load.

  • Category desktop: PSI estimates this page requires 1 render-blocking round trips and 63 resources (1.4MB) to load.

Note that at mobile brand it shows 7 round trips, and 1 everywhere else. I assume this is this issue. But mobile brand and desktop brand are the same page.

All pages have the same 3 minified CSS, and 1 minified JS.

There are both links:

category: link

brand: link

Note that if you check the scores, load them twice, to prime the cache.

1 Answer 1


first of all i'll give a personal advice: Doesn't take PageSpeed data "too seriously". In most of cases, it's very hard to achieve 100/100. I know that's not your goal, but i found it interesting to share. Also, i recommend Web Page Test, whom give more detailed information if you want.

On your Brand page, you have 3 files whom are blocking page rendering. On category, you only have one. I assume that's the cause of your question.

When i needed make pages more fast, i did realocate these css/js to the bottom (or header, i don't remember the PageSpeed orientation to this), but on mobile and mainly on bad internet connections, the page rendered the information in a "ugly" way, and only after loaded the CSS/JS.

It's a personal preference, but some of my clients wanted both: A high pagespeed score and a good-looking site, even when it's loading. My solution for that was placing some "loaders" until the site was full-loaded. I never used that with magento, but is just a suggestion, as you can see here for example.

Hope you fix your problem, good luck!

  • Believe me, it's not my requirement. The goal is to get to 80, not 100. And JS/CSS are absolutely the same in all 4 cases. Oct 16, 2018 at 18:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.