In The M-Commerce Page Load World: Target, Sears Slow; Amazon, QVC Fast

Written by Evan Schuman
December 1st, 2009

As the percentage of shopping done through the small lens of a mobile phone soars, almost to the point of being meaningful, retailers should start to calculate page load time differently. For the first half of November—when Web performance tracking company Gomez took a look—Target,, Sears and 1-800-Flowers had the most catch-up to do, while Amazon, QVC, Newegg and Overstock fared nicely.

The secret to the most successful mobile sites is pure simplicity, the lesson that Google’s homepage tried teaching the industry. For example, I often find that Amazon’s mobile app beats—with many seconds to spare—my much higher powered desktop riding over the same broadband connection looking at Amazon’s Web site, so the idea that it would come out on top is not surprising. Making this accomplishment even more impressive, according to Gomez, is that—in general—chains’ mobile site page load averages are more than “50 percent slower than the average response times” of those same chains’ traditional Web sites.

Gomez, which tracked the top retailers from November 1 through November 15 looked at both availability (where the object of the game is to get as close to 100 percent as possible and where the average was 98.74 percent) and response time (where smaller numbers rule and where the average was 4.7 seconds). Amazon won in both categories, with a 99.86 percent availability rating and a 2.85 second response time. Indeed, the top three retailers in both categories were the same and in the same sequence: Amazon was first, followed by QVC (99.84 percent and 2.94 seconds) and Newegg (99.62 percent and 3.33 seconds).

Things got slightly more varied on the wrong side of the tracks performances, although three retailers (, Sears and 1-800-Flowers) controlled the bottom rankings. In response time, the weakest four retailers were Target (6.96 seconds), (6.22 seconds), Sears (6.07 seconds) and 1-800-Flowers (5.92 seconds). In availability, the weakest four were (95.47 percent), Sears (96.28 percent), 1-800-Flowers (97.66 percent) and Target (98.17 percent).

Rounding out the list, for availability percent and response time: Overstock (99.49 percent and 3.36 seconds); Best Buy (99.46 percent and 3.44 seconds); Walmart (99.09 percent and 3.84 seconds); Victoria’s Secret (99.25 percent and 4.93 seconds); Barnes and Noble (99.59 percent and 5.23 seconds); Nordstrom (98.95 percent and 5.44 seconds); and Musician’s Friend (99.58 percent and 5.73 seconds).

To demonstrate that everything changes quickly in the mobile realm, Gomez looked at availability and response time again about two weeks later–during the post Thanksgiving sales insanity (November 27 through November 30)–and saw very different results. First, everybody’s performance generally improved, with the 98.74 percent availability average improving to 99.51 percent and the 4.7 second response time average getting a boost to an average of 3.78 seconds.

Second, Amazon dropped way down in both categories and Best Buy shot way up (taking the number one position in both categories, with 100 percent availability and a 2.19 second response time). Newegg—number three during the initial review time—still did quite well, holding on to the same spot on both lists with 100 percent availability and a 2.49 second response time. Come to think of it, with 100 percent availability, Newegg really should be tied for first in availability, along with the four other retailers that scored 100 percent (Best Buy,, Overstock and QVC).

The complete late November availability results, in order, were: BestBuy;; Newegg; Overstock; QVC; Barnes & Noble (99.90 percent); Musician’s Friend (99.90 percent); Target (99.90 percent); Amazon (99.81 percent); Nordstrom (99.81 percent); 1-800-Flowers (98.86 percent); Dell (98.66 percent); Walmart (98.16 percent) and Sears (98.08 percent).

The complete late November response time results, in order, were: Best Buy; QVC (2.2 seconds); Newegg (2.49 seconds); Overstock (2.67 seconds); Amazon (2.93 seconds); Walmart (3.23 seconds); Nordstrom (3.54 seconds); Barnes & Noble (4.21 seconds); Dell (4.35 seconds); 1-800-Flowers (4.55 seconds); (4.61 seconds); Sears (4.9 seconds); Musician’s Friend (5.11 seconds) and Target (5.95 seconds).


One Comment | Read In The M-Commerce Page Load World: Target, Sears Slow; Amazon, QVC Fast

  1. Jack Taylor Says:

    The Target vs. Amazon results are really interesting, seeing as how Amazon runs Target’s site. Looks like someone missed some clauses in the contract on performance…


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.