Why was there no benefit from the CDN?

[marketing53]

Hello,

Our website is amavida.com. Currently we have CloudFlare deactivated because our developer reported there was no benefit when it was active. They tried the free version for the use of the CDN. I’m wondering why it did not have an impact for improving our site speed and performance? Any insight is appreciated.

Perhaps there are configurations that weren’t right, or perhaps there are features on the upgrade that will be helpful. If someone can take a look at our site and make a recommendation that will be wonderful!

Specifically, we are using different tools to see issues with our site and these are the results:

(1) Page speed insights - mobile score is very low

(2) Webpagetest.org and it has listed these issues -

Use a CDN for all static assets: 38/100

[thedaveCA]

To start off with, test tools often have no clue about how things actually work (for example, assumptions about classic CDNs that use separate hostnames for static assets).

Beyond that, it really depends on how your site is designed. For example, if it adds Cache-Control headers that impede caching then you’ll see no caching benefits at all from Cloudflare. The same can happen if all content is delivered from a single URL with query parameters to request specific files (such that Cloudflare can’t guess at caching options).