Why Erome Is Slow - Speed Tested

2026-02-20

We talk a lot about EroSearch being faster than Erome. But how much faster, exactly? We ran both sites through Google's PageSpeed Insights on the same day (February 20, 2026) to get hard numbers. The results were... not close. If you're experiencing slow loading on Erome, see our troubleshooting guide or try browsing via EroSearch - it's an alternative frontend that loads the same content much faster.

Feel the difference: Open EroSearch on your phone right now - the entire app loads in under a second. No install, no account. Try a search →

The Scores

Speed Metrics - The Real Story

Lighthouse scores are nice, but the individual metrics tell the real story. Both tests were run on simulated mobile (Moto G Power, Slow 4G throttling):

Metric

EroSearch

Erome

Difference

First Contentful Paint

1.4s

3.1s

2.2x faster

Largest Contentful Paint

2.2s

4.4s

2x faster

Speed Index

1.6s

4.9s

3x faster

Total Blocking Time

10ms

20ms

2x faster

Cumulative Layout Shift

0.005

Tie

The Speed Index difference is the one you actually feel. EroSearch finishes rendering meaningful content in 1.6 seconds. Erome takes 4.9 seconds. On a slow mobile connection, that's the difference between "instant" and "is this thing loading?"

Core Web Vitals

Google's Core Web Vitals are the metrics that actually affect search rankings. They come from real Chrome user data (the CrUX report):

Erome: Failed. Their Interaction to Next Paint (INP) clocks in at 309ms - well above the 200ms "good" threshold. That means when you tap something on Erome, it takes over 300ms before anything happens. That's the lag you feel when trying to close their pop-up ads.
EroSearch: Not enough field data yet for a CrUX assessment (we're newer), but the lab metrics are all green.

Why the Gap Is So Large

JavaScript Payload

Erome ships 137 KiB of unused JavaScript and 30 KiB of unused CSS. That's code your browser downloads, parses, and compiles before the page becomes interactive - and then never uses. EroSearch's entire app is under 75KB total.

Ad Network Overhead

Erome's ad scripts are a significant portion of their page weight. Every ad network script adds DNS lookups, TCP connections, and JavaScript execution. EroSearch has minimal, static ads that don't block rendering.

Missing Image Optimization

PageSpeed flagged Erome for serving PNG thumbnails where WebP or AVIF would save ~269 KiB. They also lack explicit width/height on image elements, causing layout shifts as images load.

Security Headers

Erome is missing several security best practices: no effective Content Security Policy (CSP), no HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), no clickjacking protection (X-Frame-Options), and no origin isolation (COOP). EroSearch has all of these.

Accessibility

Erome scored 87 on accessibility - missing alt attributes on images, no skip links, no landmark regions. EroSearch scored a perfect 100.

What This Means for You

These aren't just numbers for developers to obsess over. They translate directly to your experience:

Faster loading - content appears in half the time, especially on mobile
Less data usage - smaller page size means less data consumed on mobile plans
Less battery drain - fewer scripts running means your phone works less hard
Better responsiveness - taps and swipes register instantly instead of lagging 300ms

Try It Yourself

You don't need PageSpeed Insights to see the difference - just open both sites on your phone and compare. Or take our word for it and start browsing on EroSearch.

For more on why alternative frontends are faster by design, see What Is an Alternative Frontend?

← Back to Blog