Welcome to the new era where cloud-caching goes mainstream (vs server-caching).
What is NitroPack? What does it do? And why do people rave about it so much? How does it help speed up sites and improve page scores?
And more importantly (for my fans), does Johnny like it?
Where should I start first? The good or the bad? Ok…let’s start with the GOOD!
NitroPack features:
1. It really does speed up sites.
The sites feel fast. Most of the time, instant load upon a single click. Then again, it IS a caching plugin/service and this is what caching is supposed to do.
- JUNE 1, 2021 UPDATE – I’ve been hearing more complaints about NitroPack not being as fast. I wonder if their service pre-caching is slowing down under the growth of new users, or otherwise not being as sustainable. Just a thought.
2. It gives you better page scores.
Oooooooh! Now it sounds like I’m just teasing but it’s real! Turning on NitroPack is quite possibly the easiest most effortless way to improve your page scores. You don’t need to learn a damn thing about speed optimization. Just enable NitroPack and your “D” grade can become a “B” or even an “A”. Hate all you want, the NitroPack really delivers the nitro!
3. (REALLY) Easy to use.
Listen up, “simple” cache plugins….NitroPack really is the simplest cache plugin out there. Like stupid simple. The plugin settings is one screen with 3 toggle switches and one slider. You don’t have to read online guides on what settings to pick or learn speed optimization. Of course, of course…all the settings are on their website. But still…it feels simpler and that’s all that matters for many people.
4. Tons of features.
Really comes with everything. Caching. Pre-caching. Minification, merging, critical CSS. CDN. Lazy load. Image compression. JS defer. And also you can granularly choose which post types get optimized or not. It really does have nearly every single website speed optimization feature and function you could ever ask for. And all conveniently loaded into one service. How handy, right?!
5. Automated optimization service.
NitroPack fills in that special gap of not only giving clients the tools but actually making the best decisions for them. It makes you realize where all caching plugins fall short…that they don’t help if users don’t know how to use them.
NitroPack drawbacks:
1. Ugly FOUC issues.
Every single client of mine using NitroPack has a FOUC issue. Heck even the official NitroPack site has it. LOL. You can see a split second where the styling slides into place. Call me a dinosaur but IMO it looks so unprofessional. But hey… if it doesn’t bother you…then it doesn’t matter!
2. Sometimes not that fast.
It bothers me to no end that even the official NitroPack site is kinda *sticky* load. It’s not that fast. Even after I’ve already visited the pages and pre-warmed its cache, they’re still sticky! The good news is that my client sites do load fast with NitroPack.
- You can see fast sites like this: https://thriveagency.com/
- And then slow sites like this: https://www.ishine-trade.com/
Yes…both are on NitroPack. So whatever the case may be…you know it’s not always a guaranteed miracle. I hate that even the fast one still has sporadic FOUC issues. Just remember that the best way to test speed is right in your own browser and see what’s actually loading. Don’t be surprised when a NitroPack site doesn’t load so pretty when analyzed from an actual browser.
3. The price is wayyyyy too expensive.
The price you pay for NitroPack can be even more than your webhosting, especially for the higher plans. And kudos to them, taking advantage in a consumer market that doesn’t know any better. Repackaging overly technical services into a dumbed-down simplified product for end users. It’s great marketing and product execution. But if only people knew…just put that money into your webhosting server and you’ll might get a much better overall loading experience for so much less (depending on your webhost).
- NitroPack costs $132/month per site if you have 1 million pageviews/month.
- That same $132/month easily get you a VPS server that’ll handle 2-3 million pageviews (if not more) and cover as many websites in there as you want.
But of course…in this random match-up scenario, we have to assume that you have a good webhost or server.
4. I think NitroPack “cheats” the page scores.
For example, when I tested a client site. It wouldn’t show the proper number of requests. My browser network tab was showing 152 requests (5.3mb) but GTmetrix only showed 19 requests (246kb). Congrats. They found a way to cheat the page score…but you can’t cheat the user experience. If all you care about is the number…then stick with it. But if you want to know how many MPG your car actually gets, then be cautious.
UPDATE JAN 16, 2021:
- This has since been commented on by Deyan (NitroPack CEO) that it only seems that way because NP moves certain processes off the CPU main thread and some page tests don’t report that.
- So while NP doesn’t cheat the scores it certainly optimizes things in a way that cause your site to appear better and loading fewer things on those scores.
- In reality, your website is still loading everything. I’ll comment more on this if I come back to check on this further.
- UPDATE MAR 21, 2021 – webwhim finds more explanation for potential NitroPack black hat SEO cheating?
- UPDATE NOV 11, 2021 – chats in Google SEO community accusing NitroPack of black hat SEO. And here’s NitroPack’s response to cheating claims. I let you decide.
- UPDATE NOV 26, 2021 – I made a new NitroPack review, briefly describing what changes I’ve noticed.
5. Automated cache configurations can cause issues.
If you have a complex site with complex caching or optimization needs, I think NitroPack may get in your way. Its strength of being super easy to use can also be a con for advanced users. WooCommerce sites or sites with lots of custom/dynamic AJAX stuff may have issues.
I don’t actually know this for a fact, ok? It’s just speculation. If you have a complex site and slow as heck, please try NitroPack for us all and report back here in the comments!
My verdict on NitroPack
I like what NitroPack is doing…but I don’t like NitroPack.
- It delivers a fantastic user experience and pushes the limits of what caching can do.
- I love that it’s bringing edge-caching to the masses (only they just don’t realize it).
- I also enjoy the in-house (automated) JS combine tactics. A centralized cloud service like that could certainly benefit from a known list of JS conflicts similar to how Wordfence benefits from a known list of security exploits.
- NitroPack is also a great bandaid fix for sites on slow servers and with limited caching options.
- Another side benefit is that it’s an easily-reversible optimization attempt. If it doesn’t work, you only paid for a single monthly fee. It’s not like you bought a super expensive plugin, hired an expensive speed-op developer, or migrated everything to a new server.
My gripe with NitroPack is that it’s stupidly expensive (especially for someone like me who knows what they’re doing) and still doesn’t deliver a professional page load experience. FOUC is just a major no-no in my book. I think of the word “amateur” every time I see it.
JULY 16, 2023 UPDATE:
I’ve been seeing NitroPack on more and more client sites and will happily report that it’s much improved in terms of any buggy behavior. The sites I’ve seen lately are well-optimized, snappy quick, and not as obvious FOUC issues from before.
The edge-caching revolution continues!
The good news is that edge-caching technology has already advanced so much. It used to be only for simple CDN things like static assets (CSS, JS, images, etc) but has now grown into caching even the full page cache at the edge.
There are so many boundary-crossing cache plugins and cache services that do more or less of the same thing. In time, they’ll all compete with each other to improve performance while decreasing prices.
- Cloudflare APO – utilizing their massive CDN presence and long experience in cloud-caching and cloud-processing.
- QUIC.cloud (by LiteSpeed) – leveraging their amazing free LiteSpeed cache plugin with their own CDN network. And it’s much cheaper than NitroPack.
- Rocket.net – webhosting service that does page-caching at the edge.
- All existing cache plugins – you give it some time and I bet many plugins and hosting services will start offering some degree of this (page-caching at the edge).
Who should use NitroPack?
Anyone on a crap server, bloated site, with zero knowledge of speed optimization, care (too much) about page scores, and don’t mind paying the premium.
- NitroPack – the quick-fix bandaid solution to all your speed and page score troubles!
For everyone else…trust me, you can get a better experience with normal cache plugins and save a ton of money in the process. Or better yet, put that money towards fixing/rebuilding your site and remove the crap that was slowing you down in the first place. Fix your problems at the root cause!
Definitely cheats Gtmetrix.
You know better than me Johnny , one can use [REMOTE _HOST] on Apache that is to set some conditions and a rule in .htaccess if this host are Gtmetrix ,PSI, Pingdom,etc.
Tried to explain it to a friend of mine running his site on NGINX ( i know nothing about NGINX) but he was so “in love” with NITRO and didn’t listen to me.
Prefer CF APO though it needs a bit polishing.
Saving this review in order to open his eyes!
Yeah, people are in love with things they haven’t experienced before. It’s natural to make positive association with things. But once your friend sees many ways to skin a cat, he might choose differently. Either way, it’s great that NitroPack makes him happy.
Add another con: not compatible with advertising platforms like Ezoic.
Lol, I see that as a PRO! Hahahaha.
Do yourself a favour and get rid of Ezoic. So many better ad platforms out there that allow you to use your regular cache services.
I’m not eligible for those other ad platforms (they accept a mostly US audience).
Hey Luis,
NitroPack is compatible with Ezoic integrated via their WP plugin.
Best,
Deyan
Thanks for letting me know but may I ask where you got that info? Because Ezoic says that Nitropack is incompatible: https://www.ezoic.com/compatibility/
Hi all,
Constructive feedback is always welcome. Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed review.
There’s one misconception I’d like to shed some more light on – the part about NitroPack somehow cheating speed testing tools.
First, a bit of context:
NitroPack has always delivered real solutions to web performance problems. And two of the modern web’s biggest issues are:
1. The large number of resources per page
2. JavaScript execution
Resource loading and JavaScript execution take precious CPU cycles from the main thread, which hinders the page rendering process, even with modern devices having multi-core CPUs (including low-end ones). We believe these cores must be utilized in the best way possible to achieve a great user experience.
Most devices are truly capable of loading a modern web page fast. It all comes down to hardware resource utilization. NitroPack utilizes modern CPUs’ multi-core nature to offload some blocking operations away from the main thread. Our product also rearranges the way resources are fed to the main thread to increase efficiency.
This can cause confusion when looking at waterfall charts generated by public testing tools. Most of these testing tools are designed to measure page performance, assuming standard page structure and resource loading techniques. That’s why trying to understand the output of these tools doesn’t always make sense in NitroPack’s context, which may lead a person to believe there is something funky going on.
NitroPack simply preloads assets like CSS, fonts and JS in a separate thread, that’s why it can look like assets for GTmetrix (or any other tool) are not being loaded. And because their loading does not block the main thread, they aren’t listed in the waterfall.
All this can be double-checked on any page, any site, using DevTools.
If you encounter any rough edges along the way – do get in touch, we appreciate honest and straightforward feedback.
At the end of the day, what matters to our users is real-world performance. That’s what also matters to us. And that’s what NitroPack provides.
Innovation takes a little bit of shaking up “the way things have been done” 🙂
Best,
Deyan
CEO
NitroPack
Thank you for the simple and beautifully-explained discrepancy, Deyan. I had no idea page scores weren’t reporting secondary thread operations. And have adjusted my article to account for your comments. If you have anything else new to announce, feel free to comment it below. Thanks again for your work!
This is interesting dialouge for one who has their finger hovering over Nitropack’s Purchase button. I have tried it and the improved results obtained through page speed insights are truly phenomenal.
My main concern is the amount of code Nitropack inserts into a page. Looking at your two example sites and switching to view source and running a Ctrl F entering ‘nitro’ pulls up 254 & a staggering 1484 on the respective sites. These figures are not the total extent of the extra code but just an indication of the number of code segments added.
Any thoughts?
The extra code won’t matter much if everything is pre-cached. 1KB is not an issue at all. If that’s your only concern, NitroPack should be just fine for you. After all…you’re already seeing proof that it works *magically*.
Hi Johhny,
I discovered NitroPack just recently and today decided to make my own investigation of how are 100 mobile, 100 desktop Pagespeed Insights scores possible with no effort (case study – https://metrica.bg/).
This website reported stellar results in GTMetrix and a size of 150KB, while Pingdom calculated 877.5 KB. Interestingly, GTMetrix shows no JS loaded even though the site has a slider, ReCaptcha, FB chat, etc. Also CSS and fonts are reported as 0 bytes in size, while just one of their fonts is 65KB.
I decided to test everything in the devtools where I disabled the cache. Here is what I saw:
120 requests
2.2 MB transferred (significantly larger that the tests above)
6.9 MB resources
Finish: 1.0 min
DOMContentLoaded: 405 ms
Load: 533 ms (comparable to Pingdom)
Among the loaded elements we naturally have plenty of JS, incl. 133KB ReCaptcha and 128KB FB chat.
In my testing Nitro does nothing over a careful optimisation even only with free tools. A recent client of ours (https://translation.legal/) even drops on desktop from 98 to 95 when tested on Nitro’s homepage. Yes, it improves on mobile (80 to 92) but we didn’t target that due to the audience and budget of the client.
All in all, Nitro have figured out a clever trick to fool the test bots (for now) but it is not a magic wand for actual speed optimisation. What it’s effect on SEO is another matter all together.
We shall not be using it personally or in our client work.
Thanks for your careful testing, Viktor. As per NitroPack’s CEO…he says the test-fooling part is due to it having multi-threaded processes which aren’t reported in test tools. But yes, I agree with you exactly.
> he says the test-fooling part is due to it having multi-threaded processes which aren’t reported in test tools.
So in other words it does not have any actual real word advantage whatsoever. It’s all purely cosmetic in regards with the testing tools (something that eventually will be fixed – seems Pingdom already figured it out and reports the real data).
No your conclusion is wrong. Page Speed Insights is focused on user experience metrics. It would not make ANY difference to your total score on PSI whether your waterfall loads things one way or another or the number of requests are high or not.
PSI might recommend you make less requests as a way to impact your score/performance – but in no way would that impact your performance or score. So no, they are not cheating, and it’s garbage to say there is no real world advantage.
Thank you for this great review.
Hi Johnny,
According to my preliminary understanding, JavaScript files and CSS files are pre-fetched by the NitroPack plugin on your local browser. While CSS files are processed immediately in the browser, all JavaScript files’ evaluation is further delayed if no mouse movement is detected in the browser window. The initial rendering in the Page Metric Test Tools is likely based entirely on the inline CSS in the HTML file without using additional CSS loaded on the page.
Our study at https://www.webwhim.co.uk/how-to-select-a-web-design-agency/#NitroPack indicates something fishy on a par with the Dieselgate scandal.
Thank you Victor for this finding! I appreciate your write-up and due diligence in getting to the bottom of it. We’ll see what others unfold over time.
Sorry, forgot to add. The mobile Google PageSpeed Insights score depends entirely on the amount of JavaScript bloat generated by Elementor Pro, WordPress, and other plugins. Our home page https://www.webwhim.co.uk has a mobile speed score of 99 once the jQuery is unloaded from the page. This step removes with it all JS generated automatically. NitroPack plugin achieves the same boost in the mobile page speed score with Google and GTMetrix by not evaluating and parsing JS files – there is no mouse movement in the browser when testing with Page Metric Test Tools. The multi-core solution to load JS and CSS in a separate thread was probably a stroke of genius to hide this cheating from the existing algorithms of the Page Metric Test Tools.
Great job Victor.
I was really amazed by your in-depth case study on nitropack.
Thanks! As you like our technical analysis of Nitropack at https://www.webwhim.co.uk/nitropack-black-hat-seo-speed-optimization/ , we suggest reading our in-depth analysis of Cloudways at https://www.webwhim.co.uk/how-to-select-a-wordpress-hosting-provider/#Cloudways . We believe Cloudways is the worst choice for a hosting environment among those that are currently on offer. That is why so many bloggers are being paid in exchange for their favourable reviews of Cloudways. The Cloudways team is either dishonest or incompetent for claiming the cheap Shared instance vCPUs plans as providing full CPU cores. If you are using the Cloudways services, be aware of a few possible drawbacks: sub-standard hardware and older bespoke Nginx software. A shared hosting plan with LiteSpeed Web Server and NVMe SSD storage will provide about four times more resources for the same monthly fee.
Hey all,
Picking up on some unanswered questions.
@Luis – We know NitroPack is compatible with Ezoic via plugin, we’ve tested it and it is a supported setup
Here’s in-depth, technical explanation, with examples on how we load things and why that makes sense:
https://nitropack.io/blog/post/faq-nitropack-is-not-magic
Hey Deyan,
Please follow the link at
https://www.webwhim.co.uk/how-to-select-a-web-design-agency/#nitropack-answer
to find a detailed answer to your blog mentioned above.
The concept of postponing JS execution is not an innovation to be proud of.
When NitroPack is working correctly, they seem to do a great job on many items.
However, you often do NOT know when it’s not working. Three issues come up there. First, when publishing or updating a single page it may have a cascade effect, with dozens of pages purged for re-optimization. And, during this time, those pages may be served with no optimization or caches being used, until Nitro has them available again. How long this takes may be minutes to many hours, depending on both the work needed, and their current load.
This appears to be an inherent characteristic from the degree of optimization they are doing on scripts used in many pages. However, the extent of this often isn’t realized until you browse through their logs. And, currently, according to their customer support, you may have to login to their site and purge failed attempts in order for it to retry the optimization.
Second, apparently the Nitro cache will drop pages, even if they have been successfully optimized and previously served by the cache. And there are no log entries to show this. While some may have been dropped due to the first item above, many others were found with no such log entries. I recorded an optimization log entry, then watched the http header until it was dropped from their cache (about 2-1/2 days). Returning to the Nitro logs, nothing had changed on that page’s status.
Third, in some cases, a single browser pageview will refresh their cache for subsequent views. However, sometimes that doesn’t work until many very slow browser pageviews have been taken. Their Cache Warming does not appear to be triggered here.
According to NitroPack, a reliable caching indicator is in the header as:
x-nitro-cache: MISS vs x-nitro-cache: HIT
re: https://help.nitropack.io/en/articles/4838039-how-to-check-if-nitropack-is-serving-optimized-pages-to-visitors
(Scan done using “curl -I -L ” and finding the value of x-nitro-cache: as HIT or MISS)
A brief scan was just done on several of their customers
thriveagency.com sitemap:1918 nitro-MISS:1339
hostmycode.in sitemap:55 nitro-MISS:32
sendcloud.com sitemap:130 nitro-MISS:41
goatsontheroad.com sitemap:1355 nitro-MISS:1303
scienceofpeople.com sitemap:487 nitro-MISS:334
skymall.com sitemap:33651 nitro-MISS:33573
socialchorus.com sitemap:507 nitro-MISS:371
soft-lite.com sitemap:489 nitro-MISS:449
shotkit.com sitemap:2068 nitro-MISS:466
A very few of those may be from failed optimizations, but many samples became cached right after a browser hit, so the optimizations had been successful. I then saw those same items soon dropped from their cache, even though the earlier optimization record had NOT changed. This was found by periodically logging their cached URLs, and examining any changes.
Of course, one could say that for 500 views on one page, only a single view will be slow. However, with 500 views on different pages, perhaps half of them could be quite slow, from the numbers I reported above. And this could also repeat over time.
Most NitroPack users are likely not aware of this, although NitroPack is reportedly working on this 2nd issue. However, they do not seem to believe the first issue, as simple cache drops alone do not show in their logs.
Hopefully, they will soon have this fixed. But, I have no idea how long this issue has been there, and it simply wasn’t visible until other issues caused me to start scanning the entire site.
Ouch. This wouldn’t surprise me as pre-caching is a lot of work on their edge servers. Any cache misses would benefit in their favor (at the cost of end visitor performance).
And this is somewhat worse than it sounds. Since Nitro precludes other caching, minimization, and image optimization, their cache miss means your site gets served at its worst.
And a client just asked Nitro why the mobile score on one of their pages was down to 50. Nitro tech support blamed the TTFB and told them they need a faster host. I looked at the same screenshot and saw the LCP was way high. Sure enough, when Nitro re-optimized the page the LCP went down and the score up to 87. Did Nitro not know how to read Insights, or was he just deflecting?
I really don’t know as I’m not a NitroPack user. I don’t like it. Only time will tell whether it continues to do magic or becomes decloaked.
You know what i dont like about nitro pack adverts are all over my website like crayz sooooooooo annnoyinnngggg ! unbelievable
and im not sure some people says its really fast but most people says it affects the seo very badly ? is it right please let me know if anyone experienced
Great writeup. As for delaying all JS for scoring, Google is already addressing at Pagespeed(Lighthouse) level with user flows, which will account for end-to-end optimization, not just the initial cold load: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/issues/11313
And for Core Web Vitals, on our findings, almost none of the WordPress websites that delays all JS for scoring(not only Nitropack) and actually score +90, aren’t passing the ‘field data’, even after passing the ‘lab data’:
https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/issues/11904#issuecomment-838967912
This corroborates with what JWP (John) from Google Search Console said:
“We are already seeing lots of people showing up here saying “my site is really fast with zero CLS in Lighthouse etc etc”, who are then failing dismally in the real world of CrUX (and asking for an explanation because they don’t appreciate the difference). Any tool that tries to outsmart the ‘lab’ tests is only going to make matters worse in the very short term…”
And since Core Web Vitals is a scoring factor and Pagespeed isn’t, I would choose to have a better User Experience and ranking, instead of scoring on rankless Pagespeed.
Thank you, Pedro!
Read at some Facebook groups, so many ppl complaining about NP cheating for score. Pro is too expensive.
If you love great score on PSI, nitropack is your friend.
Okay. Great stuff. I used the free Nitropack. Low traffic site. But what to improve. I bought WP Rocket but it has not improved my site speed. Gtmetrix suggests “Reduce initial server response time”
I am reading this now https://wordpress.org/support/article/optimization-caching/
In order to do as you suggested “…trust me, you can get a better experience with normal cache plugins and save a ton of money in the process”.
I installed AssetCleanup and it made an improvement.
Other than W3 Total Cache, WP Super Cache or Cache Enabler what else do you suggest?
When i am using nitro pack i got 100 PSI score and after one month i seen huge drop in rankings,i went though what are the changes i made in the website ,slowly i restore the website with backup , now my rankings are slowly coming back.but i cant say NP is the reason but we can one thing, we can fool google page speed insights tool but not users .
Gentlemen,
I know this is a late comment to the forum.
Thank you for one of the most interesting forums I have read in a while. “Interesting” as defined by expert comments and fact-based debates. I also want to thank Nitro’s CEO for taking time out of an obviously busy schedule to offer counter comments. This forum has provided both sides of an argument, which as you know more than I, that is still being debated all over the internet. @Johnny, sincere thanks for the informative site, very helpful! @Victor, amazing analysis Sir, thank you!
My WP developer installed NitroPack which instantly took my sites score for F’s and sub 30’s to A and 90+…within an hour with the user experience reflecting the numbers/scores. I was so amazed that it led me to ask how did he do it. He advised NitroPack. I have not heard of it so started to research it, thus landing here. I am not a techy like you all, but probably represent a large percentage of Nitro’s and other like offerings customer base, someone who does not know what FOUC is or the pros/cons of postponing JS execution. I simply want a faster site.
As Johnny perfectly wrote in his Review conclusion section, “Who should use NitroPack?”:
“Anyone on a crap server, bloated site, with zero knowledge of speed optimization, care (too much) about page scores, and don’t mind paying the premium.”
The aforementioned describes me and again, probably the largest percentage of Nitro’s customer base. As a senior IT consultant (Agile space), I consult organizational leaders on having a customer-centric mindset. Delivering value to their customer. Although what I have read seems to be very valuable and some might agree from an expert tech perspective that Nitro is “tricking” the system. I do not care. As customer, I simply want to speed up my “bloated site” which sits on a “crap server” hosted by (cover your eyes Techies) Go Daddy.
Forget all the tech talk and numbers, as a customer I needed a quick solution to speed up my site, and without a doubt Nitro has accomplished it. The value of any product can only be defined by the customer, in this context the person ultimately responsible for a bad or good user experience…that is the CEO, Marketing VP, or someone on the “Business” side.
As for me (The Customer), Nitro has delivered the value I so desperately needed now. In reference to future risks of something going wrong or slow performance returning, risks are assessed based on likelihood and criticality. How likely is the perceived risk to occur, and if it does occur, how critical would it be? From what I read here and several other blogs, the risk assessment score of installing Nitro would not be high at all.
Now this is a “tech” forum so all of this customer-centric and value-based delivery talk may not matter to this audience. But the interesting thing from what I have read since none of you would recommend or install Nitro (except one commenter I believe), you are not even Nitro’s customer base.
Well, again, @Johnny, thank you for a truly comprehensive and non-tech review of the product. Thank you all for truly helping me decide. Be well, be safe.
Thanks for sharing your experience here, Gordon!
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Gordon. I appreciate that someone who is less technical doesn’t care how the sausage gets made. However, I urge you to keep an eye on your Core Web Vitals scores (especially Largest Contentful Paint), which reflect real user experiences.
My client has a 10k-page site and saw their PageSpeed Insights scores shoot way up into green territory after installing and configuring NitroPack (I was not part of this). However, in the past few months, their Core Web Vitals scores have begun to tank, for reasons I was hired to try to understand. Even more worrying, Google plans to start measuring user experience past the initial page load event (see link in Gerry’s first post), which sounds like it might blow up their business model.
For what it’s worth, I tweeted at NitroPack asking what they planned to do about it and they replied that they are EXCITED about the changes coming down from Google, and see them as a validation of their optimization philosophy. Here’s the thread: https://twitter.com/getnitropack/status/1458006744882364420
Thank you Johnny, for confirming what I suspected – that my client could drop the paid service so we can optimize their site using CF and other free optimization methods. I also realized you look very familiar, tanguero! Small world 🙂
Holy sh*t, Alison. Ya found me. 😉
Thank you for the insightful review of NitroPack Cloud Caching and CDN Service! As a website owner (https://trendytrades.co.uk/) constantly seeking ways to optimize performance, I found your detailed analysis incredibly helpful.
Your breakdown of NitroPack’s features and benefits, along with your firsthand experience using the service, provides valuable insights for those of us navigating the world of website optimization. It’s reassuring to hear about the significant improvements in speed and performance that NitroPack offers, especially with the added convenience of seamless integration and user-friendly settings.
Its still one of the most terrible caching plugins after cheating a long time.
Only one simple examples why its still an overpriced service:
In General:
the results are okay and having a caching plugin is better as not having a caching plugin.
But now step into the massive problems if we use nitro-pack:
1. We using most agressive mode and site is broken and not fast. Why?
2. At the same time we using wp-rocket caching pluginin mode: much faster and page is not broken.
3. How to prefetch needed DNS lookups by nitro-pack? We have year 2024 and we still stuck in this basics because its not possible. Confirmed by nitro-pack:
https://nitropack.io/blog/post/reduce-dns-lookups
“Here’s the deal: Switching to a faster DNS provider, deciding on which resource you should locally host, and implementing DNS caching are strategies you should do on your own or with the help of your hosting provider. For everything else, you can use NitroPack.”
Why not say in clear words: We still can not do this at 2024.
And now the most funny part from this guide:
“Also, being an all-in-one solution means you can easily replace all your speed optimization plugins that increase your site’s DNS lookups (and decrease invoices).” So in other words: We can not do this, but you know what: with us you can save money now. Who cares about DNS prefetch for needed DNS lookup?!
4. The crawler is so slow. Running many projects on nitropack caching service.
Every project running very slow by crawler. Why putting it on dedicated server/saas if its slower like caching plugin with crawler? Example: page with 7.000 pages need 1 hour on wp-rocket. On nitropack we only crawled 46% of all pages.
5. Next massive problem:
We are in 2024 and caching basics like craler with priority per posttype is still not possible by using nitropack.
Example:
Lets say you have 5.000 blog posts, 5.000 custom posttype posts and 100 pages and 5.000 products. Which you shoud run first with crawler in your ecommerce project? Correct, the product type. But after using nitro pack we still have no option to setup custom priority like in other caching plugins.
6. All our detailed benchmarks on many cloned projects show very similar results like this example:
wp-rocket result:
Website is not broken.
Setup after 5 minutes is done.
Google pagespeed mobile viewport result: 93. Passed core vital.
Grade A on gtmetrix.
nitropack results:
Mobile Score is 66.
Grade B on gtmetrix.
7. Service is overpriced. You pay per project and per visits.
While other services and plugins have much better results: they are also much cheaper and some of them do not charge per domain / views. For example wp-rocket charge per year and you have unlimited domains for a very low price. (flatrate).
Support was not able to help after many hours of chats.
So finally we wasted our time in a lot of nitro-pack projects. The product have great marketing, but the value and the price is wrong and does not match. Most terrible product ever, sorry for that words.
I’ve been a developer for about five years, consistently using WP Rocket and LiteSpeed Cache to optimize websites. One of my clients, an eCommerce store with 50-60k monthly page visits, had PSI scores of 85 for desktop and 57-63 for mobile. Despite these numbers, the client wasn’t satisfied, pushing me to explore alternatives. That’s when I came across NitroPack.
Initially, I faced some JavaScript issues, but after fine-tuning the settings, I saw remarkable improvements—99 on desktop and 90-93 on mobile. This definitely reassured the client, but I was still skeptical and suspected something might be off. Surprisingly, the field data began to improve, and the overall stats remained solid.
However, there was one incident where NitroPack caused my custom CSS to disappear on the front-end, leaving the site looking broken and unprofessional. I did everything I could on my end, but the issue only resolved when I disabled NitroPack—at the cost of site speed. I reached out to NitroPack’s support team, and they were incredibly responsive, fixing the issue in under two hours.
Overall, NitroPack has earned my trust. While I haven’t delved into every aspect like some others might, I’ve seen consistently excellent results, especially when adjusting the settings manually. I now use NitroPack across all my sites.