Sitemorse: Sears, Target and Kohl’s Among Slowest E-Commerce Sites

Written by Fred J. Aun
December 14th, 2009

E-Commerce properties operated by some of the largest global retailers, including Kroger, Sears, Target, Kohl’s and The Home Depot, yielded unusually slow page response results in a field of 221 retail sites recently tested by U.K.-based Web tracking firm Sitemorse.

Kroger nearly scraped the bottom of the barrel during the comparison, landing in the eighth place from the bottom of Sitemorse’s list with a yawn-inspiring average response time of almost 1.5 seconds. How bad is that speed. “The general view of Sitemorse is that anything more than 250 milliseconds—a quarter of a second—is failing,” a Sitemorse statement said.

Kroger was far from alone as an American E-Commerce site lacking get-up-and-go. Other sluggish sites were The Home Depot with a 570 millisecond response speed, Target at 616 milliseconds, Kohl’s with 693 milliseconds, The Sports Authority at 739 milliseconds and Sears at a creaky 896 milliseconds.

A little bit better was Amazon with its 446 millisecond average speed, followed by Wal-Mart’s average response time of 412 milliseconds, the 417 milliseconds of Macy’s, Best Buy’s 369 milliseconds and Apple’s 364 milliseconds.

The Sitemorse system tested the top 125 pages of a site and averaged the time it took for those pages to react to standard “get” directives from a browser, Sitemorse Head of Client Services Gareth Evans said. Although 1.5 seconds might not seem particularly slow, it’s a cyber-lifetime slower than the times attained by sites at the top of the Sitemorse list. Among the largest retail brands, J.C. Penney ranked the highest, coming in at number 40 with a spirited average response time of 141 milliseconds.

Sites owned by Walgreens, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Limited Brands and Family Dollar were clustered relatively high on the list with response times between 224 milliseconds and 228 milliseconds. CVS, Foot Locker, Rite Aid and Dollar Tree also managed decent speeds, ranging between 234 milliseconds and 249 milliseconds.

Evans stressed that external factors, such as ISP and network speeds, have no bearing on Sitemorse’s test results. Nor can a poor showing be blamed on one or two content-heavy pages in a site, such as a homepage full of Flash animation, he contended. “When we run our surveys, we have a look at the top 125 pages of those sites,” he said. “We hit the homepage, check it with all our different tests, have a look for links on that page and follow them until we get 125 pages.”

“We’re just hitting all the pages we can find, as close to the homepage as we can. For each page we look at, we issue lots of ‘get’ requests and we track the response time of each of those requests across all of those 125 pages and then we average that,” Evan said. “So it’s not just the homepage or key landing pages. It’s a real mixture of static pages and dynamic pages, and it’s a pretty representative cross-section of all the pages in their sites.”

As for what factors are likely to make one site faster than another, Evans said the differences are probably the result of server and database hardware quality or setup, although software does play a part.

“It could be some odd coding they’ve got in there or because they are using some creaky old technology,” he said. “It could be they are having problems pulling data out of their database. Our figures are all about how long it takes for the hardware to respond to any request. In terms of what might be causing that, it could be a range of things. Maybe the hardware is not up to handling the volume of traffic due to design issues that don’t allow it to be speedy.”

In fairness to those in the middle of the pack, Evans said a half-second average response time is decent. “Essentially, what we’ve got here is just a list of sites and those at the top, such as Debenhams (28 milliseconds), are very, very quick. Those are startlingly quick numbers, whereas Wal-Mart’s speed is fair. It is still less than half a second. So we have to be a little bit careful of being critical of someone like Wal-Mart. We have to look at the numbers and say, ‘It’s half a second. Is that OK?’ Half a second is alright, but speed is one of those things that are starting to come to the fore as connection speeds become quicker.”


Comments are closed.


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.