michael/astro
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

update astro vs lighthouse scores

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Fred K. Schott 2021-07-21 15:15:33 -07:00
parent 5609940be0
commit 1085542d9d
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
docs/src/pages/comparing-astro-vs-other-tools.md
View file

@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Docusaurus doesn't support partial hydration, and instead has the user load and
[docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) is the official Docusaurus documentation website, built with Docusaurus. The website offers a similar enough design and featureset to compare against the official Astro documentation website. This gives us a **_rough, real-world_** comparison between the two site builders.
- **Docusaurus performance score**: 26 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocusaurus.io%2Fdocs)
- **Astro performance score**: 94 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 95 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) loads **238kb** of JavaScript on first load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) only loads **9.3kb** (96% less JavaScript, overall).
@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ SvelteKit doesn't support partial hydration, and instead has the user load and r
One notable difference between the two sites being tested: SvelteKit's documentation is served as a single page while Astro's is broken up into multiple pages. This larger content payload should have a slight negative impact on performance that is not related to the tool itself.
- **SvelteKit performance score**: 92 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkit.svelte.dev%2Fdocs)
- **Astro performance score**: 94 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 95 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
SvelteKit performed comparably to Astro in this test.
@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Next.js has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Next.js a bette
[nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) is the official Next.js documentation website, built with Next.js. The website offers a similar enough design and featureset to compare against the official Astro documentation website. This gives us a **_rough, real-world_** comparison between the two site builders for this common use-case.
- **Next.js performance score**: 59 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnextjs.org%2Fdocs%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 94 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 95 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) loads **463kb** of JavaScript on first load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) only loads **9.3kb** (98% less JavaScript, overall).
@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ Nuxt has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Nuxt a better choi
[nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) is the official Nuxt documentation website, built with Nuxt. The website offers a similar enough design and featureset to compare against the official Astro documentation website. This gives us a **_rough, real-world_** comparison between the two site builders for this common use-case.
- **Nuxt performance score**: 48 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnuxtjs.org%2Fdocs%2F2.x%2Fget-started%2Finstallation)
- **Astro performance score**: 94 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 95 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) loads **469kb** of JavaScript on first load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) only loads **9.3kb** (98% less JavaScript, overall).
@ -184,6 +184,6 @@ VuePress doesn't support partial hydration, and instead has the user load and re
[vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) is the official VuePress documentation website, built with VuePress. The website offers a similar enough design and featureset to compare against the official Astro documentation website. This gives us a **_rough, real-world_** comparison between the two site builders for this common use-case.
- **Vuepress performance score**: 63 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvuepress.vuejs.org%2Fguide%2F)
- **Astro performance score**: 94 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
- **Astro performance score**: 95 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) only loads **9.3kb** (94% less JavaScript, overall).
One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) only loads **9.3kb** (95% less JavaScript, overall).