What to pick if you’re in a rush<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack is a really good all-in-one service if you have money to invest in your site and don\u2019t have the time to bother with manual fixes. It\u2019s an easy-to-implement solution to pass the Core Web Vitals, and it has excellent customizability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the major drawback is that it\u2019s pretty expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n
![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-plans.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nSo if you can\u2019t afford Nitropack, WP Rocket is a great alternative. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s still going to set you back a small amount. But it\u2019s much cheaper than Nitropack. And it\u2019s a decent choice for caching and file optimization. Unfortunately, WP Rocket won\u2019t take care of everything you need to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, they don\u2019t have a Content Delivery Network. And they don\u2019t optimize your images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So WP Rocket is a good bootstrapping option. But keep in mind that you\u2019ll need to do some extra work on top of installing WP Rocket.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack Pros and Cons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack has a balanced offer. It\u2019s pretty expensive (you can end up paying thousands of dollars per year for really big sites) but it does offer a great toolset for the money you\u2019re paying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And real results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From our tests (we\u2019ll talk more about them in a bit) Nitropack is the fastest, most effective way to pass the Core Web Vitals test. So you do get a lot for the money you\u2019re paying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we would like to see better support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pros<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Very effective at optimizing your WordPress site for the Core Web Vitals test<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Easy to deploy<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Complete solution for website performance optimization<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Support is not up to par with pricing<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Bad history of server issues<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket Pros and Cons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket is in a different league than Nitropack. It can do a lot of what Nitropack does but it\u2019s not as exhaustive. For example, both tools minify CSS and JavaScript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But WP Rocket doesn\u2019t have a CDN. Or a reliable way to optimize images. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So it\u2019s more accurate to describe it as a \u201ccaching plugin\u201d rather than a complete web performance tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In turn, WP Rocket shines better in comparison with other caching plugins, like W3 Total Cache, Autoptimize or Breeze<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pros<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Much more affordable than Nitropack<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Easy to use<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Great advanced settings and features<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lots of small updates have helped with core web vitals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Most alternatives are free<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lacks some features you\u2019d expect in this price range<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Features and Settings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket overlap on some features. Especially for file and code optimization. However, there are considerable differences between the two. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image optimization stands out here. WP Rocket has no tools to compress and resize the images in your backend.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-features.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
So let\u2019s analyze the main things these two plugins can do, and how they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Caching is not extremely different between WP Rocket and Nitropack. Both Nitropack and WP Rocket have an advanced browser caching mechanism for speed optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So who does it better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket does almost everything automatically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do offer some options for mobile caching, and they give you control over the cache lifespan.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-mobile-cache-1024x614.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThese options are not available in Nitropack. And it\u2019s nice to see them in a cache plugin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at their core, both tools do browser caching, page caching, and all the other types of caching more or less the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the similarities continue. For example, WP Rocket has cache preloading options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-preload.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd in Nitropack, you can enable warm caching, which prepares site pages even if they\u2019re not being loaded by users.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-cache-warmup.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut Nitropack does stand out with some features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It offers a nice overview of what their advanced caching mechanism has been up to:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-advanced-caching-1024x539.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThis is excellent to gauge your site\u2019s performance and the hit ratio of the cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it\u2019s also a nice tool when deploying Nitropack. You can quickly tell if something\u2019s wrong by comparing the cached size with your site size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it gets better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Nitropack has smart cache invalidation. This is a complex process that updates your pages in the background, without removing older versions from the cache until the new ones are ready.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-smart-cache-invalidation-1024x336.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nCache invalidation is really hard to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And Nitropack takes care of it automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We would like to see the options of WP Rocket in Nitropack as well. They\u2019re helpful in niche situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as it stands, Nitropack does a better job caching your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HTML, CSS and JavaScript Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is the bread and butter of both plugins, and there\u2019s a clear winner in this category. Nitropack Is much better at optimizing files on your site\u2019s server.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-minify-resources-1024x100.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs you\u2019ll see below in our performance tests, Nitropack is more effective at optimizing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript on your WordPress website as soon as you install it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, Nitropack also has a ton more options to customize your file optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t want to bash WP Rocket too much though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have some advanced tools that are extremely useful, like generating critical CSS, removing unused CSS, or excluding files from modification.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-file-optimization.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe thing is: Nitropack does all of that and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For starters, Nitropack\u2019s \u201cReduce unused CSS\u201d feature is not in beta, so you can expect a stable deployment if you tick that box.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-reduce-unused-css-1024x518.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMoreover, you have more options to exclude files, more options for HTML optimization, and the option to create custom CSS rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack even has advanced features dedicated to solving Core Web Vitals issues. For example, you can solve the \u201cRemove render-blocking features\u201d with a special setting for it:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-render-blocking-resources-1024x349.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFor the core file minification, both tools do a good job. For example, they\u2019re both capable of GZIP compression, which helps site performance a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when you look into the details, Nitropack is the better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket features advanced lazy loading. This makes images initialize ONLY at the moment people need them. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-media-optimization.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s great for site speed, but it\u2019s not as flashy as you might think. Advanced lazy loading is a default feature in WordPress since 5.5<\/a> anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWP Rocket is also compatible with WebP images.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-webp-compatibility.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWith WebP, you can implement lossless image compression, for example. This helps a bit. But it\u2019s very little compared to what Nitropack offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack has a complete image optimization stack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You just need to deploy Nitropack on your site, and it will compress your images. Moreover, Nitropack has adaptive image sizing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This improves your site speed and helps you solve a very common issue found in the Google Pagespeed Insights test.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-image-compression.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack also has lazy load, but as we said, it\u2019s not a huge feature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you use WordPress, you\u2019re getting it by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lossless image compression and resize are the most useful features. And only Nitropack has the complete image optimization stack you\u2019ll need to improve your WordPress site performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Content Delivery Network<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is crucial for fast site speeds and good web performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A CDN stores your site content on servers all across the globe. When anybody visits your site, the CDN will look at their IP and figure out where they\u2019re browsing from. Then, they\u2019ll load your site from the nearest server to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s pretty intuitive.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Cdn](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/cdn-graphic-1024x483.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd it\u2019s essential if you want to pass the Core Web Vitals test, and speed up your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, WP Rocket has no CDN. And that\u2019s one of the biggest differences between the tools. WP Rocket does integrate well with CDNs like Cloudflare or BunnyCDN. So you can make it work if you invest in more tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Nitropack has its own CDN. And it\u2019s enabled by AWS servers, one of the fastest available. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-cdn-1024x633.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nDoes it show in tests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Performance And Core Web Vitals Metrics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We can talk about features for hours. They\u2019re helpful to gauge who would benefit most from a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at the end of the day, you\u2019re comparing WP Rocket vs Nitropack to see which one will help you pass the Core Web Vitals test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to see which one has the most gimmicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So let\u2019s see how both of these tools performed when we put them to the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Benchmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For this performance test, we analyzed a playground site that mimics one of our sites to the teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it has some issues. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-benchmark-1024x648.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe biggest one is render-blocking resources:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-before-opportunities-1024x555.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut we do struggle in other areas as well. For example, we could do with some image optimization:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-before-diagnostics-1024x692.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs well as ensuring that text remains visible during webfont load. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So how do the tools perform?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Results We Got With Nitropack<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack solved all of our issues instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-mobile-after-nitropack-1024x563.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWe didn\u2019t even have to set anything up. We just enabled warm caching, but that\u2019s because we were using a test site with no traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And these were the results. On mobile, we still had minor issues with FCP, but nothing to worry about. And on desktop, we got a perfect score.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-desktop-nitropack-1024x586.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFrom a ton of issues, we went to almost none in a few minutes:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-issues-after-nitropack-1024x518.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nsettings, and disable \u201cCombine CSS\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So one thing\u2019s clear: if you need to pass the Core Web Vitals, and you don\u2019t want to struggle too much, Nitropack is the pick for you. As long as you can pay the premium price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Test Results With WP Rocket On Our Site<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket didn\u2019t disappoint either. Here\u2019s an overview of how it performed:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-after-wp-rocket-1024x861.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWhile it looks better on the surface, keep in mind that these speed scores can fluctuate from one test to the next. What matters is the diagnostics and opportunities listed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We still had some issues there. But at least they were mitigated enough so we passed the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Test](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/test-site-issues-after-wp-rocket-1024x772.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAlso, keep in mind that the image diagnostics were not our fault. That\u2019s just how Amazon serves images.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nSo in our particular case, WP Rocket was a good choice to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we did have to tweak the settings a little bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, we rely on Cloudflare CDN. With Nitropack, that\u2019s taken care of by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\u2019s the conclusion? As long as you\u2019re down to take care of some stuff manually, like getting a CDN and compressing images, WP Rocket is a good choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you don\u2019t have the time for that, and you can afford it, Nitropack is a faster, better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pricing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pricing is the category where WP Rocket is the more affordable solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you can expect to pay for the cache plugin:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Wp](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/wp-rocket-pricing-1024x422.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n$49\/year is a lot compared to a free caching plugin. And it definitely lacks some tools you\u2019d expect for this price, like image optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when compared to Nitropack, it\u2019s much cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you\u2019ll pay for Nitropack:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-pricing-1024x494.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s much more expensive than your average WordPress plugin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But you do get your money\u2019s worth. And the price scales with your site\u2019s size. If you get millions of monthly visitors, the $176\/month price tag won\u2019t seem that big. The free version is also great for users that want to give it a try before committing to anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
User Experience and Support<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket are pretty similar in user experience and support. Both are pretty easy to deploy, have a pleasant interface, and intuitive options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack has a slightly more robust knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"Nitropack](\"https:\/\/www.authorityhacker.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/nitropack-knowledge-base-1024x573.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd both of them have a ticket-based support system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that\u2019s an indictment of Nitropack. For the money you pay on it, you\u2019d expect some form of live or priority support for paying members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both tools are available on WordPress, but Nitropack is the only one that can be deployed on other platforms. So if you want to improve performance on Magento websites, only Nitropack can help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack vs WP Rocket: Which One Is Right For You?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re not tight on cash, Nitropack is the right choice. It saves you a lot of time and gets you green ticks on the Core Web Vitals Test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not a perfect tool. It even has a bad rep in some circles. Read our Nitropack review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Support is not up to par with pricing<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Bad history of server issues<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket Pros and Cons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket is in a different league than Nitropack. It can do a lot of what Nitropack does but it\u2019s not as exhaustive. For example, both tools minify CSS and JavaScript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But WP Rocket doesn\u2019t have a CDN. Or a reliable way to optimize images. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So it\u2019s more accurate to describe it as a \u201ccaching plugin\u201d rather than a complete web performance tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In turn, WP Rocket shines better in comparison with other caching plugins, like W3 Total Cache, Autoptimize or Breeze<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pros<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Much more affordable than Nitropack<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Easy to use<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Great advanced settings and features<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lots of small updates have helped with core web vitals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Most alternatives are free<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lacks some features you\u2019d expect in this price range<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Features and Settings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket overlap on some features. Especially for file and code optimization. However, there are considerable differences between the two. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image optimization stands out here. WP Rocket has no tools to compress and resize the images in your backend.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
So let\u2019s analyze the main things these two plugins can do, and how they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Caching is not extremely different between WP Rocket and Nitropack. Both Nitropack and WP Rocket have an advanced browser caching mechanism for speed optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So who does it better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket does almost everything automatically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do offer some options for mobile caching, and they give you control over the cache lifespan.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThese options are not available in Nitropack. And it\u2019s nice to see them in a cache plugin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at their core, both tools do browser caching, page caching, and all the other types of caching more or less the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the similarities continue. For example, WP Rocket has cache preloading options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd in Nitropack, you can enable warm caching, which prepares site pages even if they\u2019re not being loaded by users.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut Nitropack does stand out with some features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It offers a nice overview of what their advanced caching mechanism has been up to:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThis is excellent to gauge your site\u2019s performance and the hit ratio of the cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it\u2019s also a nice tool when deploying Nitropack. You can quickly tell if something\u2019s wrong by comparing the cached size with your site size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it gets better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Nitropack has smart cache invalidation. This is a complex process that updates your pages in the background, without removing older versions from the cache until the new ones are ready.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nCache invalidation is really hard to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And Nitropack takes care of it automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We would like to see the options of WP Rocket in Nitropack as well. They\u2019re helpful in niche situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as it stands, Nitropack does a better job caching your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HTML, CSS and JavaScript Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is the bread and butter of both plugins, and there\u2019s a clear winner in this category. Nitropack Is much better at optimizing files on your site\u2019s server.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs you\u2019ll see below in our performance tests, Nitropack is more effective at optimizing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript on your WordPress website as soon as you install it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, Nitropack also has a ton more options to customize your file optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t want to bash WP Rocket too much though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have some advanced tools that are extremely useful, like generating critical CSS, removing unused CSS, or excluding files from modification.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe thing is: Nitropack does all of that and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For starters, Nitropack\u2019s \u201cReduce unused CSS\u201d feature is not in beta, so you can expect a stable deployment if you tick that box.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMoreover, you have more options to exclude files, more options for HTML optimization, and the option to create custom CSS rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack even has advanced features dedicated to solving Core Web Vitals issues. For example, you can solve the \u201cRemove render-blocking features\u201d with a special setting for it:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFor the core file minification, both tools do a good job. For example, they\u2019re both capable of GZIP compression, which helps site performance a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when you look into the details, Nitropack is the better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket features advanced lazy loading. This makes images initialize ONLY at the moment people need them. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s great for site speed, but it\u2019s not as flashy as you might think. Advanced lazy loading is a default feature in WordPress since 5.5<\/a> anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWP Rocket is also compatible with WebP images.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWith WebP, you can implement lossless image compression, for example. This helps a bit. But it\u2019s very little compared to what Nitropack offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack has a complete image optimization stack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You just need to deploy Nitropack on your site, and it will compress your images. Moreover, Nitropack has adaptive image sizing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This improves your site speed and helps you solve a very common issue found in the Google Pagespeed Insights test.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack also has lazy load, but as we said, it\u2019s not a huge feature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you use WordPress, you\u2019re getting it by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lossless image compression and resize are the most useful features. And only Nitropack has the complete image optimization stack you\u2019ll need to improve your WordPress site performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Content Delivery Network<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is crucial for fast site speeds and good web performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A CDN stores your site content on servers all across the globe. When anybody visits your site, the CDN will look at their IP and figure out where they\u2019re browsing from. Then, they\u2019ll load your site from the nearest server to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s pretty intuitive.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd it\u2019s essential if you want to pass the Core Web Vitals test, and speed up your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, WP Rocket has no CDN. And that\u2019s one of the biggest differences between the tools. WP Rocket does integrate well with CDNs like Cloudflare or BunnyCDN. So you can make it work if you invest in more tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Nitropack has its own CDN. And it\u2019s enabled by AWS servers, one of the fastest available. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nDoes it show in tests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Performance And Core Web Vitals Metrics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We can talk about features for hours. They\u2019re helpful to gauge who would benefit most from a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at the end of the day, you\u2019re comparing WP Rocket vs Nitropack to see which one will help you pass the Core Web Vitals test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to see which one has the most gimmicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So let\u2019s see how both of these tools performed when we put them to the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Benchmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For this performance test, we analyzed a playground site that mimics one of our sites to the teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it has some issues. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe biggest one is render-blocking resources:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut we do struggle in other areas as well. For example, we could do with some image optimization:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs well as ensuring that text remains visible during webfont load. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So how do the tools perform?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Results We Got With Nitropack<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack solved all of our issues instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWe didn\u2019t even have to set anything up. We just enabled warm caching, but that\u2019s because we were using a test site with no traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And these were the results. On mobile, we still had minor issues with FCP, but nothing to worry about. And on desktop, we got a perfect score.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFrom a ton of issues, we went to almost none in a few minutes:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nsettings, and disable \u201cCombine CSS\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So one thing\u2019s clear: if you need to pass the Core Web Vitals, and you don\u2019t want to struggle too much, Nitropack is the pick for you. As long as you can pay the premium price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Test Results With WP Rocket On Our Site<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket didn\u2019t disappoint either. Here\u2019s an overview of how it performed:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWhile it looks better on the surface, keep in mind that these speed scores can fluctuate from one test to the next. What matters is the diagnostics and opportunities listed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We still had some issues there. But at least they were mitigated enough so we passed the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAlso, keep in mind that the image diagnostics were not our fault. That\u2019s just how Amazon serves images.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nSo in our particular case, WP Rocket was a good choice to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we did have to tweak the settings a little bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, we rely on Cloudflare CDN. With Nitropack, that\u2019s taken care of by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\u2019s the conclusion? As long as you\u2019re down to take care of some stuff manually, like getting a CDN and compressing images, WP Rocket is a good choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you don\u2019t have the time for that, and you can afford it, Nitropack is a faster, better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pricing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pricing is the category where WP Rocket is the more affordable solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you can expect to pay for the cache plugin:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n$49\/year is a lot compared to a free caching plugin. And it definitely lacks some tools you\u2019d expect for this price, like image optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when compared to Nitropack, it\u2019s much cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you\u2019ll pay for Nitropack:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s much more expensive than your average WordPress plugin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But you do get your money\u2019s worth. And the price scales with your site\u2019s size. If you get millions of monthly visitors, the $176\/month price tag won\u2019t seem that big. The free version is also great for users that want to give it a try before committing to anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
User Experience and Support<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket are pretty similar in user experience and support. Both are pretty easy to deploy, have a pleasant interface, and intuitive options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack has a slightly more robust knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd both of them have a ticket-based support system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that\u2019s an indictment of Nitropack. For the money you pay on it, you\u2019d expect some form of live or priority support for paying members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both tools are available on WordPress, but Nitropack is the only one that can be deployed on other platforms. So if you want to improve performance on Magento websites, only Nitropack can help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack vs WP Rocket: Which One Is Right For You?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re not tight on cash, Nitropack is the right choice. It saves you a lot of time and gets you green ticks on the Core Web Vitals Test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not a perfect tool. It even has a bad rep in some circles. Read our Nitropack review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket Pros and Cons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket is in a different league than Nitropack. It can do a lot of what Nitropack does but it\u2019s not as exhaustive. For example, both tools minify CSS and JavaScript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But WP Rocket doesn\u2019t have a CDN. Or a reliable way to optimize images. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So it\u2019s more accurate to describe it as a \u201ccaching plugin\u201d rather than a complete web performance tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In turn, WP Rocket shines better in comparison with other caching plugins, like W3 Total Cache, Autoptimize or Breeze<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pros<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Much more affordable than Nitropack<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Easy to use<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Great advanced settings and features<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lots of small updates have helped with core web vitals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Most alternatives are free<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lacks some features you\u2019d expect in this price range<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Features and Settings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket overlap on some features. Especially for file and code optimization. However, there are considerable differences between the two. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image optimization stands out here. WP Rocket has no tools to compress and resize the images in your backend.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
So let\u2019s analyze the main things these two plugins can do, and how they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Caching is not extremely different between WP Rocket and Nitropack. Both Nitropack and WP Rocket have an advanced browser caching mechanism for speed optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So who does it better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket does almost everything automatically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do offer some options for mobile caching, and they give you control over the cache lifespan.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThese options are not available in Nitropack. And it\u2019s nice to see them in a cache plugin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at their core, both tools do browser caching, page caching, and all the other types of caching more or less the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the similarities continue. For example, WP Rocket has cache preloading options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd in Nitropack, you can enable warm caching, which prepares site pages even if they\u2019re not being loaded by users.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut Nitropack does stand out with some features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It offers a nice overview of what their advanced caching mechanism has been up to:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThis is excellent to gauge your site\u2019s performance and the hit ratio of the cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it\u2019s also a nice tool when deploying Nitropack. You can quickly tell if something\u2019s wrong by comparing the cached size with your site size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it gets better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Nitropack has smart cache invalidation. This is a complex process that updates your pages in the background, without removing older versions from the cache until the new ones are ready.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nCache invalidation is really hard to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And Nitropack takes care of it automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We would like to see the options of WP Rocket in Nitropack as well. They\u2019re helpful in niche situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as it stands, Nitropack does a better job caching your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HTML, CSS and JavaScript Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is the bread and butter of both plugins, and there\u2019s a clear winner in this category. Nitropack Is much better at optimizing files on your site\u2019s server.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs you\u2019ll see below in our performance tests, Nitropack is more effective at optimizing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript on your WordPress website as soon as you install it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, Nitropack also has a ton more options to customize your file optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t want to bash WP Rocket too much though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have some advanced tools that are extremely useful, like generating critical CSS, removing unused CSS, or excluding files from modification.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe thing is: Nitropack does all of that and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For starters, Nitropack\u2019s \u201cReduce unused CSS\u201d feature is not in beta, so you can expect a stable deployment if you tick that box.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMoreover, you have more options to exclude files, more options for HTML optimization, and the option to create custom CSS rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack even has advanced features dedicated to solving Core Web Vitals issues. For example, you can solve the \u201cRemove render-blocking features\u201d with a special setting for it:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFor the core file minification, both tools do a good job. For example, they\u2019re both capable of GZIP compression, which helps site performance a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when you look into the details, Nitropack is the better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket features advanced lazy loading. This makes images initialize ONLY at the moment people need them. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s great for site speed, but it\u2019s not as flashy as you might think. Advanced lazy loading is a default feature in WordPress since 5.5<\/a> anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWP Rocket is also compatible with WebP images.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWith WebP, you can implement lossless image compression, for example. This helps a bit. But it\u2019s very little compared to what Nitropack offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack has a complete image optimization stack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You just need to deploy Nitropack on your site, and it will compress your images. Moreover, Nitropack has adaptive image sizing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This improves your site speed and helps you solve a very common issue found in the Google Pagespeed Insights test.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack also has lazy load, but as we said, it\u2019s not a huge feature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you use WordPress, you\u2019re getting it by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lossless image compression and resize are the most useful features. And only Nitropack has the complete image optimization stack you\u2019ll need to improve your WordPress site performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Content Delivery Network<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is crucial for fast site speeds and good web performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A CDN stores your site content on servers all across the globe. When anybody visits your site, the CDN will look at their IP and figure out where they\u2019re browsing from. Then, they\u2019ll load your site from the nearest server to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s pretty intuitive.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd it\u2019s essential if you want to pass the Core Web Vitals test, and speed up your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, WP Rocket has no CDN. And that\u2019s one of the biggest differences between the tools. WP Rocket does integrate well with CDNs like Cloudflare or BunnyCDN. So you can make it work if you invest in more tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Nitropack has its own CDN. And it\u2019s enabled by AWS servers, one of the fastest available. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nDoes it show in tests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Performance And Core Web Vitals Metrics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We can talk about features for hours. They\u2019re helpful to gauge who would benefit most from a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at the end of the day, you\u2019re comparing WP Rocket vs Nitropack to see which one will help you pass the Core Web Vitals test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to see which one has the most gimmicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So let\u2019s see how both of these tools performed when we put them to the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Benchmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For this performance test, we analyzed a playground site that mimics one of our sites to the teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it has some issues. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe biggest one is render-blocking resources:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut we do struggle in other areas as well. For example, we could do with some image optimization:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs well as ensuring that text remains visible during webfont load. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So how do the tools perform?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Results We Got With Nitropack<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack solved all of our issues instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWe didn\u2019t even have to set anything up. We just enabled warm caching, but that\u2019s because we were using a test site with no traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And these were the results. On mobile, we still had minor issues with FCP, but nothing to worry about. And on desktop, we got a perfect score.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFrom a ton of issues, we went to almost none in a few minutes:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nsettings, and disable \u201cCombine CSS\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So one thing\u2019s clear: if you need to pass the Core Web Vitals, and you don\u2019t want to struggle too much, Nitropack is the pick for you. As long as you can pay the premium price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Test Results With WP Rocket On Our Site<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket didn\u2019t disappoint either. Here\u2019s an overview of how it performed:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWhile it looks better on the surface, keep in mind that these speed scores can fluctuate from one test to the next. What matters is the diagnostics and opportunities listed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We still had some issues there. But at least they were mitigated enough so we passed the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAlso, keep in mind that the image diagnostics were not our fault. That\u2019s just how Amazon serves images.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nSo in our particular case, WP Rocket was a good choice to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we did have to tweak the settings a little bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, we rely on Cloudflare CDN. With Nitropack, that\u2019s taken care of by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\u2019s the conclusion? As long as you\u2019re down to take care of some stuff manually, like getting a CDN and compressing images, WP Rocket is a good choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you don\u2019t have the time for that, and you can afford it, Nitropack is a faster, better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pricing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pricing is the category where WP Rocket is the more affordable solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you can expect to pay for the cache plugin:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n$49\/year is a lot compared to a free caching plugin. And it definitely lacks some tools you\u2019d expect for this price, like image optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when compared to Nitropack, it\u2019s much cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you\u2019ll pay for Nitropack:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s much more expensive than your average WordPress plugin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But you do get your money\u2019s worth. And the price scales with your site\u2019s size. If you get millions of monthly visitors, the $176\/month price tag won\u2019t seem that big. The free version is also great for users that want to give it a try before committing to anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
User Experience and Support<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket are pretty similar in user experience and support. Both are pretty easy to deploy, have a pleasant interface, and intuitive options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack has a slightly more robust knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd both of them have a ticket-based support system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that\u2019s an indictment of Nitropack. For the money you pay on it, you\u2019d expect some form of live or priority support for paying members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both tools are available on WordPress, but Nitropack is the only one that can be deployed on other platforms. So if you want to improve performance on Magento websites, only Nitropack can help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack vs WP Rocket: Which One Is Right For You?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re not tight on cash, Nitropack is the right choice. It saves you a lot of time and gets you green ticks on the Core Web Vitals Test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not a perfect tool. It even has a bad rep in some circles. Read our Nitropack review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- Most alternatives are free<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lacks some features you\u2019d expect in this price range<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Features and Settings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket overlap on some features. Especially for file and code optimization. However, there are considerable differences between the two. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image optimization stands out here. WP Rocket has no tools to compress and resize the images in your backend.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
So let\u2019s analyze the main things these two plugins can do, and how they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Caching is not extremely different between WP Rocket and Nitropack. Both Nitropack and WP Rocket have an advanced browser caching mechanism for speed optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So who does it better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket does almost everything automatically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do offer some options for mobile caching, and they give you control over the cache lifespan.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThese options are not available in Nitropack. And it\u2019s nice to see them in a cache plugin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at their core, both tools do browser caching, page caching, and all the other types of caching more or less the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the similarities continue. For example, WP Rocket has cache preloading options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd in Nitropack, you can enable warm caching, which prepares site pages even if they\u2019re not being loaded by users.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut Nitropack does stand out with some features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It offers a nice overview of what their advanced caching mechanism has been up to:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThis is excellent to gauge your site\u2019s performance and the hit ratio of the cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it\u2019s also a nice tool when deploying Nitropack. You can quickly tell if something\u2019s wrong by comparing the cached size with your site size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it gets better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Nitropack has smart cache invalidation. This is a complex process that updates your pages in the background, without removing older versions from the cache until the new ones are ready.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nCache invalidation is really hard to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And Nitropack takes care of it automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We would like to see the options of WP Rocket in Nitropack as well. They\u2019re helpful in niche situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as it stands, Nitropack does a better job caching your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HTML, CSS and JavaScript Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is the bread and butter of both plugins, and there\u2019s a clear winner in this category. Nitropack Is much better at optimizing files on your site\u2019s server.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs you\u2019ll see below in our performance tests, Nitropack is more effective at optimizing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript on your WordPress website as soon as you install it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, Nitropack also has a ton more options to customize your file optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t want to bash WP Rocket too much though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have some advanced tools that are extremely useful, like generating critical CSS, removing unused CSS, or excluding files from modification.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe thing is: Nitropack does all of that and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For starters, Nitropack\u2019s \u201cReduce unused CSS\u201d feature is not in beta, so you can expect a stable deployment if you tick that box.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMoreover, you have more options to exclude files, more options for HTML optimization, and the option to create custom CSS rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack even has advanced features dedicated to solving Core Web Vitals issues. For example, you can solve the \u201cRemove render-blocking features\u201d with a special setting for it:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFor the core file minification, both tools do a good job. For example, they\u2019re both capable of GZIP compression, which helps site performance a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when you look into the details, Nitropack is the better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket features advanced lazy loading. This makes images initialize ONLY at the moment people need them. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s great for site speed, but it\u2019s not as flashy as you might think. Advanced lazy loading is a default feature in WordPress since 5.5<\/a> anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWP Rocket is also compatible with WebP images.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWith WebP, you can implement lossless image compression, for example. This helps a bit. But it\u2019s very little compared to what Nitropack offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack has a complete image optimization stack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You just need to deploy Nitropack on your site, and it will compress your images. Moreover, Nitropack has adaptive image sizing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This improves your site speed and helps you solve a very common issue found in the Google Pagespeed Insights test.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack also has lazy load, but as we said, it\u2019s not a huge feature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you use WordPress, you\u2019re getting it by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lossless image compression and resize are the most useful features. And only Nitropack has the complete image optimization stack you\u2019ll need to improve your WordPress site performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Content Delivery Network<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is crucial for fast site speeds and good web performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A CDN stores your site content on servers all across the globe. When anybody visits your site, the CDN will look at their IP and figure out where they\u2019re browsing from. Then, they\u2019ll load your site from the nearest server to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s pretty intuitive.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd it\u2019s essential if you want to pass the Core Web Vitals test, and speed up your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, WP Rocket has no CDN. And that\u2019s one of the biggest differences between the tools. WP Rocket does integrate well with CDNs like Cloudflare or BunnyCDN. So you can make it work if you invest in more tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Nitropack has its own CDN. And it\u2019s enabled by AWS servers, one of the fastest available. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nDoes it show in tests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Performance And Core Web Vitals Metrics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We can talk about features for hours. They\u2019re helpful to gauge who would benefit most from a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at the end of the day, you\u2019re comparing WP Rocket vs Nitropack to see which one will help you pass the Core Web Vitals test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to see which one has the most gimmicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So let\u2019s see how both of these tools performed when we put them to the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Benchmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For this performance test, we analyzed a playground site that mimics one of our sites to the teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it has some issues. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe biggest one is render-blocking resources:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut we do struggle in other areas as well. For example, we could do with some image optimization:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs well as ensuring that text remains visible during webfont load. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So how do the tools perform?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Results We Got With Nitropack<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack solved all of our issues instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWe didn\u2019t even have to set anything up. We just enabled warm caching, but that\u2019s because we were using a test site with no traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And these were the results. On mobile, we still had minor issues with FCP, but nothing to worry about. And on desktop, we got a perfect score.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFrom a ton of issues, we went to almost none in a few minutes:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nsettings, and disable \u201cCombine CSS\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So one thing\u2019s clear: if you need to pass the Core Web Vitals, and you don\u2019t want to struggle too much, Nitropack is the pick for you. As long as you can pay the premium price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Test Results With WP Rocket On Our Site<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket didn\u2019t disappoint either. Here\u2019s an overview of how it performed:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nWhile it looks better on the surface, keep in mind that these speed scores can fluctuate from one test to the next. What matters is the diagnostics and opportunities listed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We still had some issues there. But at least they were mitigated enough so we passed the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAlso, keep in mind that the image diagnostics were not our fault. That\u2019s just how Amazon serves images.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nSo in our particular case, WP Rocket was a good choice to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we did have to tweak the settings a little bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, we rely on Cloudflare CDN. With Nitropack, that\u2019s taken care of by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\u2019s the conclusion? As long as you\u2019re down to take care of some stuff manually, like getting a CDN and compressing images, WP Rocket is a good choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you don\u2019t have the time for that, and you can afford it, Nitropack is a faster, better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pricing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pricing is the category where WP Rocket is the more affordable solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you can expect to pay for the cache plugin:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n$49\/year is a lot compared to a free caching plugin. And it definitely lacks some tools you\u2019d expect for this price, like image optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when compared to Nitropack, it\u2019s much cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what you\u2019ll pay for Nitropack:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s much more expensive than your average WordPress plugin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But you do get your money\u2019s worth. And the price scales with your site\u2019s size. If you get millions of monthly visitors, the $176\/month price tag won\u2019t seem that big. The free version is also great for users that want to give it a try before committing to anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
User Experience and Support<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket are pretty similar in user experience and support. Both are pretty easy to deploy, have a pleasant interface, and intuitive options.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack has a slightly more robust knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd both of them have a ticket-based support system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that\u2019s an indictment of Nitropack. For the money you pay on it, you\u2019d expect some form of live or priority support for paying members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both tools are available on WordPress, but Nitropack is the only one that can be deployed on other platforms. So if you want to improve performance on Magento websites, only Nitropack can help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack vs WP Rocket: Which One Is Right For You?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re not tight on cash, Nitropack is the right choice. It saves you a lot of time and gets you green ticks on the Core Web Vitals Test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not a perfect tool. It even has a bad rep in some circles. Read our Nitropack review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Features and Settings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack and WP Rocket overlap on some features. Especially for file and code optimization. However, there are considerable differences between the two. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image optimization stands out here. WP Rocket has no tools to compress and resize the images in your backend.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
So let\u2019s analyze the main things these two plugins can do, and how they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Caching is not extremely different between WP Rocket and Nitropack. Both Nitropack and WP Rocket have an advanced browser caching mechanism for speed optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So who does it better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket does almost everything automatically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do offer some options for mobile caching, and they give you control over the cache lifespan.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThese options are not available in Nitropack. And it\u2019s nice to see them in a cache plugin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But at their core, both tools do browser caching, page caching, and all the other types of caching more or less the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the similarities continue. For example, WP Rocket has cache preloading options.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnd in Nitropack, you can enable warm caching, which prepares site pages even if they\u2019re not being loaded by users.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBut Nitropack does stand out with some features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It offers a nice overview of what their advanced caching mechanism has been up to:<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThis is excellent to gauge your site\u2019s performance and the hit ratio of the cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it\u2019s also a nice tool when deploying Nitropack. You can quickly tell if something\u2019s wrong by comparing the cached size with your site size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it gets better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Nitropack has smart cache invalidation. This is a complex process that updates your pages in the background, without removing older versions from the cache until the new ones are ready.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nCache invalidation is really hard to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And Nitropack takes care of it automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We would like to see the options of WP Rocket in Nitropack as well. They\u2019re helpful in niche situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But as it stands, Nitropack does a better job caching your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HTML, CSS and JavaScript Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is the bread and butter of both plugins, and there\u2019s a clear winner in this category. Nitropack Is much better at optimizing files on your site\u2019s server.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAs you\u2019ll see below in our performance tests, Nitropack is more effective at optimizing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript on your WordPress website as soon as you install it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not to mention, Nitropack also has a ton more options to customize your file optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t want to bash WP Rocket too much though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They have some advanced tools that are extremely useful, like generating critical CSS, removing unused CSS, or excluding files from modification.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe thing is: Nitropack does all of that and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For starters, Nitropack\u2019s \u201cReduce unused CSS\u201d feature is not in beta, so you can expect a stable deployment if you tick that box.<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMoreover, you have more options to exclude files, more options for HTML optimization, and the option to create custom CSS rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nitropack even has advanced features dedicated to solving Core Web Vitals issues. For example, you can solve the \u201cRemove render-blocking features\u201d with a special setting for it:<\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nFor the core file minification, both tools do a good job. For example, they\u2019re both capable of GZIP compression, which helps site performance a lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But when you look into the details, Nitropack is the better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Image Optimization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
WP Rocket features advanced lazy loading. This makes images initialize ONLY at the moment people need them. <\/p>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nIt\u2019s great for site speed, but it\u2019s not as flashy as you might think. Advanced lazy loading is a default feature in WordPress since 5.5<\/a> anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WP Rocket is also compatible with WebP images.<\/p>\n\n\n With WebP, you can implement lossless image compression, for example. This helps a bit. But it\u2019s very little compared to what Nitropack offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nitropack has a complete image optimization stack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You just need to deploy Nitropack on your site, and it will compress your images. Moreover, Nitropack has adaptive image sizing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This improves your site speed and helps you solve a very common issue found in the Google Pagespeed Insights test.<\/p>\n\n\n Nitropack also has lazy load, but as we said, it\u2019s not a huge feature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you use WordPress, you\u2019re getting it by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lossless image compression and resize are the most useful features. And only Nitropack has the complete image optimization stack you\u2019ll need to improve your WordPress site performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is crucial for fast site speeds and good web performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A CDN stores your site content on servers all across the globe. When anybody visits your site, the CDN will look at their IP and figure out where they\u2019re browsing from. Then, they\u2019ll load your site from the nearest server to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s pretty intuitive.<\/p>\n\n\n And it\u2019s essential if you want to pass the Core Web Vitals test, and speed up your site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, WP Rocket has no CDN. And that\u2019s one of the biggest differences between the tools. WP Rocket does integrate well with CDNs like Cloudflare or BunnyCDN. So you can make it work if you invest in more tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Nitropack has its own CDN. And it\u2019s enabled by AWS servers, one of the fastest available. <\/p>\n\n\n Does it show in tests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n We can talk about features for hours. They\u2019re helpful to gauge who would benefit most from a tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But at the end of the day, you\u2019re comparing WP Rocket vs Nitropack to see which one will help you pass the Core Web Vitals test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not to see which one has the most gimmicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So let\u2019s see how both of these tools performed when we put them to the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this performance test, we analyzed a playground site that mimics one of our sites to the teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And it has some issues. <\/p>\n\n\n The biggest one is render-blocking resources:<\/p>\n\n\n But we do struggle in other areas as well. For example, we could do with some image optimization:<\/p>\n\n\n As well as ensuring that text remains visible during webfont load. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So how do the tools perform?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nitropack solved all of our issues instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n We didn\u2019t even have to set anything up. We just enabled warm caching, but that\u2019s because we were using a test site with no traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And these were the results. On mobile, we still had minor issues with FCP, but nothing to worry about. And on desktop, we got a perfect score.<\/p>\n\n\n From a ton of issues, we went to almost none in a few minutes:<\/p>\n\n\n settings, and disable \u201cCombine CSS\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So one thing\u2019s clear: if you need to pass the Core Web Vitals, and you don\u2019t want to struggle too much, Nitropack is the pick for you. As long as you can pay the premium price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WP Rocket didn\u2019t disappoint either. Here\u2019s an overview of how it performed:<\/p>\n\n\n While it looks better on the surface, keep in mind that these speed scores can fluctuate from one test to the next. What matters is the diagnostics and opportunities listed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We still had some issues there. But at least they were mitigated enough so we passed the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n Also, keep in mind that the image diagnostics were not our fault. That\u2019s just how Amazon serves images.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So in our particular case, WP Rocket was a good choice to pass the Core Web Vitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But we did have to tweak the settings a little bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not to mention, we rely on Cloudflare CDN. With Nitropack, that\u2019s taken care of by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what\u2019s the conclusion? As long as you\u2019re down to take care of some stuff manually, like getting a CDN and compressing images, WP Rocket is a good choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you don\u2019t have the time for that, and you can afford it, Nitropack is a faster, better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pricing is the category where WP Rocket is the more affordable solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s what you can expect to pay for the cache plugin:<\/p>\n\n\n $49\/year is a lot compared to a free caching plugin. And it definitely lacks some tools you\u2019d expect for this price, like image optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But when compared to Nitropack, it\u2019s much cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s what you\u2019ll pay for Nitropack:<\/p>\n\n\n It\u2019s much more expensive than your average WordPress plugin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But you do get your money\u2019s worth. And the price scales with your site\u2019s size. If you get millions of monthly visitors, the $176\/month price tag won\u2019t seem that big. The free version is also great for users that want to give it a try before committing to anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nitropack and WP Rocket are pretty similar in user experience and support. Both are pretty easy to deploy, have a pleasant interface, and intuitive options.<\/p>\n\n\n Nitropack has a slightly more robust knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n And both of them have a ticket-based support system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that\u2019s an indictment of Nitropack. For the money you pay on it, you\u2019d expect some form of live or priority support for paying members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both tools are available on WordPress, but Nitropack is the only one that can be deployed on other platforms. So if you want to improve performance on Magento websites, only Nitropack can help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re not tight on cash, Nitropack is the right choice. It saves you a lot of time and gets you green ticks on the Core Web Vitals Test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not a perfect tool. It even has a bad rep in some circles. Read our Nitropack review<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nContent Delivery Network<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nPerformance And Core Web Vitals Metrics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Benchmark<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nThe Results We Got With Nitropack<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nTest Results With WP Rocket On Our Site<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nPricing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nUser Experience and Support<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nNitropack vs WP Rocket: Which One Is Right For You?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n