Competitive evidence · The Competition’s “speed script”
They sell the test score.
We measured what Google ranks on.
The Competition markets dramatic speed gains from a bolt-on script - scores doubling, load times “improving” up to +981%. Those are lab numbers, and lab numbers are gameable. Below is the field reality - real-user Core Web Vitals, the metric that actually drives Google rankings - for every dealer on their own sheet.
dealers measurable in the field still FAIL Core Web Vitals
average score gain The Competition claims across these same sites
actually pass in the field, plus 2 with too little real traffic to even measure
The receipts
Every dealer The Competition listed, their claimed speed-script gains beside the live field result. A struck-through claim is one the field contradicts. Dealer identities are withheld - results published; identities shared privately on request.
| Dealer | Their claim · score | Their claim · LCP | Field LCP (p75, real users) | Core Web Vitals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dealer 32 | 25 33 32.0% | 34.5s 24.3s | 7.11s | fails field |
| Dealer 28 | 25 42 68.0% | 41.1s 16.5s | 6.47s | fails field |
| Dealer 08 | 31 58 87.1% | 11.5s 6.6s | 5.17s | fails field |
| Dealer 20 | 27 48 77.8% | 21.9s 10.9s | 4.33s | fails field |
| Dealer 29 | 31 43 38.7% | 20.9s 15s | 3.93s | fails field |
| Dealer 19 | 27 72 166.7% | 17.3s 5.7s | 3.83s | fails field |
| Dealer 01 | 40 42 5.0% | 28.8s 30.9s | 3.38s | fails field |
| Dealer 05 | 30 46 53.3% | 8.3s 9.9s | 3.29s | fails field |
| Dealer 16 | 27 32 18.5% | 14.6s 11s | 3.03s | fails field |
| Dealer 11 | 28 51 82.1% | 24.3s 7.3s | 2.77s | fails field |
| Dealer 03 | 16 35 118.8% | 11.9s 11.7s | 2.70s | fails field |
| Dealer 09 | 32 41 28.1% | 17.7s 18.3s | 2.70s | fails field |
| Dealer 31 | 32 66 106.2% | 45.8s 5.6s | 2.54s | fails field |
| Dealer 12 | 26 57 119.2% | 13.4s 8s | 2.39s | fails field |
| Dealer 13 | 26 29 11.5% | 19.5s 14.4s | 2.37s | fails field |
| Dealer 30 | 28 38 35.7% | 20.3s 10.2s | 2.19s | fails field |
| Dealer 14 | 31 45 45.2% | 12.7s 8.6s | 2.16s | fails field |
| Dealer 02 | 28 45 60.7% | 15.2s 12.7s | 1.86s | fails field |
| Dealer 25 | 24 26 8.3% | 17.7s 15.9s | 1.73s | fails field |
| Dealer 21 | 42 67 59.5% | 10.3s 4.3s | - | no field data |
| Dealer 23 | 30 60 100.0% | 8.8s 6.2s | - | no field data |
| Dealer 07 | 29 56 93.1% | 12.8s 4.6s | 2.42s | passes field |
| Dealer 10 | 29 39 34.5% | 31.8s 20.4s | 2.29s | passes field |
| Dealer 27 | 27 45 66.7% | 24.7s 6.7s | 2.21s | passes field |
| Dealer 17 | 31 52 67.7% | 13.2s 3.1s | 2.09s | passes field |
| Dealer 06 | 26 68 161.5% | 17.3s 1.6s | 2.05s | passes field |
| Dealer 24 | 28 48 71.4% | 14s 6.2s | 1.90s | passes field |
| Dealer 26 | 33 64 93.9% | 9.1s 4.9s | 1.80s | passes field |
| Dealer 22 | 27 53 96.3% | 13.3s 7.8s | 1.77s | passes field |
| Dealer 15 | 37 48 29.7% | 17.4s 4.8s | 1.65s | passes field |
| Dealer 04 | 30 66 83.3% | 15.2s 5.1s | 1.42s | passes field |
| Dealer 18 | 32 60 87.5% | 11.1s 6s | 1.22s | passes field |
CWV “pass” = field p75 LCP ≤ 2.5s, INP ≤ 200ms, CLS ≤ 0.1. Rows are indexed, not named - identities shared privately on request. Method: how we tested.
The source - The Competition's own marketing sheet
Every claimed figure above is transcribed as-is from The Competition's own PageSpeed results sheet; illegible rows were omitted, not invented. The sheet names the dealers, so it isn't reproduced here - results published; identities (and the sheet itself) shared privately on request.
How we tested
The whole argument rests on one distinction: lab scores can be gamed; field Core Web Vitals cannot. Here is exactly how each number on this page was produced, so you can run it yourself.
Field reality - Core Web Vitals (CrUX)
the un-gameable number
For every domain we query Google PageSpeed Insights (which serves CrUX). We take the 28-day 75th-percentile of real Chrome users: LCP, INP, CLS. A site "passes" Core Web Vitals only if p75 LCP ≤ 2.5s AND INP ≤ 200ms AND CLS ≤ 0.1. This is the metric Google uses for ranking; no client-side script can change it without genuinely making the page faster for real users.
GET https://www.googleapis.com/pagespeedonline/v5/runPagespeed ?url=https://www.<dealer>/&strategy=mobile&category=performance&key=<key> # read loadingExperience.metrics.* (p75); fall back to originLoadingExperience
Lab score - Lighthouse, controlled
what marketing screenshots show
We run Lighthouse (mobile, simulated throttling) and take the median of N runs to cut variance. Lab scores are reproducible but synthetic: they reward deferring or hiding work, even when the user's real experience is unchanged. We report lab beside field precisely to show the gap.
npx lighthouse <url> --only-categories=performance \ --throttling-method=simulate --chrome-flags="--headless=new" # ×N, take median
Isolation - does the script itself do anything?
allowed vs. blocked
To test a speed script in isolation we load the same page twice - once with the script's requests allowed, once with them blocked at the network - 12 runs, median-of-3. If the script worked, blocking it would make the page measurably worse. On the DealerInspire dealer we tested, blocking The Competition's scripts left LCP unchanged and TTI slightly faster: the script relocates main-thread work, it doesn't remove it.
lighthouse <url> --block-url-patterns="*<competitor-cdn>*" ... # blocked lighthouse <url> ... # allowed
Fair A/B - control vs optimized, same conditions
isolating the rewrite
To measure our own edge rewrite honestly, we serve BOTH the original and the optimized HTML from the same localhost origin, so each pays the identical cross-origin sub-resource cost. The delta is then purely the rewrite. (Comparing an optimized localhost page against the live origin would unfairly penalize the optimized side, a trap we hit and corrected.)
control = origin HTML + <base href> only optimized = + critical CSS + non-blocking sheets + deferral # both served from localhost, Lighthouse median of 5
Provenance
Field + lab data pulled 2026-07-22 via PageSpeed Insights API (CrUX dataset).
The Competition's figures transcribed from their marketing sheet (identities withheld - sheet shared privately on request); illegible rows omitted, not invented.
“What's possible” deltas are our edge-rewrite fair A/Bs (median of 5), image optimization off.
Thresholds are Google's published “good” p75 bars: LCP ≤ 2500ms, INP ≤ 200ms, CLS ≤ 0.1.
Evidence build · Spif.io · field data captured 2026-07-22. Field data: Google PageSpeed Insights / CrUX (real-user 28-day p75). The Competition's figures transcribed from their own marketing sheet. Lab numbers are synthetic and gameable; field numbers are what Google ranks on.
Same test, your site.
Request a demo and we'll measure the site you have today - script off vs on - and show you the delta before you commit.