Both offer a free tier so you can give both a no-risk test and see for yourself. This isn’t so much of a factor though if you’re compressing images that already exist on the site.Īt the end of the day, both a quite capable and if you don’t want to pay for image compression, you’re will do well to use TinyPNG, but if compression performance is a priority, ShortPixel is definitely the way to go. In my eyes, the main advantage ShortPixel has over TinyPNG, other than better compression, is that it compresses images in the background and doesn’t hinder you as you build a site. ShortPixel looks to be the more capable of the two plugins, not just in its ability to compress images but also in its feature set. And also, if you’re taking over an existing site you might discover that the previous designer didn’t compress the images and you could make major improvements to load times by putting the images on a strict diet.Īll that said, the results of this little test speak for themselves. Just to say, the reason I used such a large image was because once you hand over a site to a client, aside from limiting the file upload size, you’ve got no control of what they are going to upload to it so at least with plugins like these you can rest assured that their visitors aren’t going to get frustrated with excessively large images taking too long to download, and navigate away before the page has finished loading. ShortPixel on the other hand processes the image in the background allowing you to use the image while it does it’s thing.
TinyPNG effectively locks the image until it’s been processed which forces you to wait until the image has been compressed before you can use it. This is where the two plugins differ greatly. Both plugins take the image you’ve uploaded and send it to their own servers to be compressed before it’s sent back to you.
0 kommentar(er)
