Page speed regression alerts

Page speed regression alerts is an ongoing (monthly) service: we regularly measure the load speed of agreed pages (time to first byte, loading of the main content, total weight and full load time, the number and size of resources) under controlled conditions and compare against a baseline. If the metrics notably worsen, you get an alert with what regressed, by how much and when (tied to a deploy or date). This catches typical causes of slowdown: JS bloated, a heavy third-party script or widget added, unoptimized images uploaded, the server/cache changed. Honestly about the essence: this is observation of regression and alerting, NOT speeding up and NOT optimization — we show what slowed and when, but do not "fix" speed; remediation (images, scripts, cache, server, markup) is done by your team or by us separately. And honestly: speed depends on many factors and monitoring itself does not raise it; a rise in rankings or conversion cannot be guaranteed — more precisely: you learn about a drop faster, but the recovery speed depends on your reaction and remediation, the monitoring itself speeds up nothing. These are synthetic measurements under controlled conditions — they are stable for comparison over time but can differ from a specific real user's experience (their device and network). Measurement fluctuations are possible — so we use repeated runs and thresholds; the measurements may rely on third-party tools with their limits and cost, which we warn about separately. Coverage is the agreed pages; someone must react to an alert. An important boundary: these are speed-regression alerts, not a one-time performance audit with an optimization plan (separate) and not the optimization itself; it differs from Core Web Vitals monitoring on real users in that the focus here is on overall speed and controlled measurements (they can be combined). Honest antisell: on a simple low-traffic site where speed is already fine and there is no active development, continuous alerts are usually overkill — a one-time performance audit is enough. Picture this: instead of "the site quietly got heavier over six months, conversion drifted, and the cause is sought blindly" you get an alert that after a release the homepage weight doubled and loading slowed by 1.8 seconds. The base price starts from 8,000 ₽ per month; it depends on the number of pages and the measurement frequency.

• After a deploy the site may have slowed down, but you notice it late.
• Scripts and images pile up, the site gets heavier and speed quietly drops.
• You suspect a speed drop hits conversion and rankings.
• You optimized speed but are not sure it has not drifted back.

• Regular speed measurements of agreed pages under controlled conditions
• Metrics: TTFB, main-content loading, weight and full load time
• Control of the number and size of resources (scripts, images)
• Comparison against a baseline and tie-in to deploys
• Alerts on a notable regression (what, how much, when)
• Repeated runs and thresholds (fewer false positives from fluctuations)
• Monthly continuous operation
• An alert channel of your choice (email, messenger, webhook)

• You learn about a slowdown on the day of the regression, not from a conversion drop
• You see which page, which metric and by how much it regressed
• You know the likely cause (weight/script/images grew) to remediate
• Less chance of silently losing the speed achieved (optimization — separately)

• We agree on pages, metrics, thresholds and the alert channel; collect access if needed
• We capture the baseline and set up regular measurements
• We launch monitoring, send alerts on regression, review the dynamics

• Will the site become faster and rankings rise after the alerts?

  The monitoring itself does not speed it up or move rankings. It shows what slowed and when and helps you not lose what you achieved. Speeding up (images, scripts, cache, server, markup) is separate work, and a rise in rankings or conversion cannot be guaranteed.

• Is this the real speed for my users?

  These are synthetic measurements under controlled conditions — they are stable for comparison over time and catch regressions well, but can differ from a specific user's experience (their device and network). For real-user data there is Core Web Vitals monitoring — they are convenient to combine.

• How is this different from a performance audit?

  A performance audit is a one-time deep review with an optimization plan. These alerts are ongoing observation to catch regressions over time. They complement each other, but they are different services.