PageSpeed Insights docs
Google documents PSI as a mix of Lighthouse lab data and field data when available.
Performance Audit
Faultry vs PageSpeed Insights
PageSpeed Insights is the fast answer when you want lab data plus Google’s field context. Faultry is the better answer when speed is only one symptom and the live page needs a broader diagnosis.
| Category | PageSpeed Insights | Faultry |
|---|---|---|
| Core Web Vitals | Lab and field performance data in one familiar workflow. | PageSpeed/Lighthouse lab audit with separate CrUX context when available. CrUX is shown separately from lab scoring so the page diagnosis stays honest. |
| Google field data context | Strong when Chrome UX Report data is available. | Carries CrUX context into the report without pretending field data is the whole diagnosis. |
| Live mobile behavior | Performance-oriented mobile emulation, not a usability-focused pass. | Live Chromium render at 375x667 with overflow and tap-target checks. |
| Social preview validation | Outside the core workflow. | Full OG + Twitter Card validation with tag-based preview simulation. |
| AI discoverability | Not the product focus. | Crawler access, llms.txt quality (emerging convention), and cloaking checks. |
| Runtime failures | Not meant to summarize client-side reliability issues. | Initial page-load findings categorized by type + severity. |
| Output style | Great for quick Google-flavored performance checks. | Better when a founder needs one report that connects speed, visibility, trust, and conversion blockers. |
When to use PageSpeed Insights
- › Use PageSpeed Insights when you need a fast performance check with Chrome UX Report context and do not want setup friction.
- › It is still one of the best quick answers for “how bad is the speed problem right now?”
- › If the team is already speaking in CWV metrics, PSI keeps everyone on familiar ground.
When Faultry fits better
- › Use Faultry when the page can look fine in PSI and still underperform because the issue lives in preview quality, crawler access, trust signals, mobile usability, or console reliability.
- › It is also a better fit when the audience is not only engineers and the output needs to be easy to act on.
- › PSI remains useful downstream when Faultry points back to performance work.
Source-backed reading
Chrome UX Report
CrUX is useful context, but it does not replace a live-site audit across trust and conversion blockers.
Questions people ask before switching
Is Faultry competing with Google data?
No. Google-side performance data is still valuable. Faultry is trying to answer the non-speed questions that page-speed data cannot answer cleanly on its own.
Why mention PSI if Faultry already shows performance?
Because PSI is still the default reference point for many teams. The comparison is useful mostly to explain where PSI stops and where a broader site audit begins.
Run the live-page check before you buy another stack
Faultry is useful when the practical question is not “which suite has more tabs?” but “what on this page is hurting discoverability, trust, or conversions right now?”
Run a Free Visibility Audit