Unused CSS finder VS Simply Static

Compare Unused CSS finder VS Simply Static and see what are their differences

Kimp

Kimp is an unlimited design company, specializing in graphic design (including print and digital designs, custom illustrations, landing page designs and email designs) and video design. featured

This page does not exist

Contents:

» Base Details
» Videos
» Reviews
» Alternatives

Unused CSS finder

Crawl your website and find unused CSS

Simply Static

Never worry about WordPress hacks again.

Landing page //
2021-09-27

Landing page //
2021-10-02

Unused CSS finder

Website: jitbit.com

Edit details

Simply Static

Website: simplystatic.co

Edit details

Unused CSS finder features and specs

Efficiency
Identifies unused CSS, resulting in cleaner and more efficient code. This can lead to improved page load times and reduced bandwidth usage.
Ease of Use
Provides a straightforward interface that allows users to quickly scan their websites and find unnecessary CSS without needing extensive technical knowledge.
Cost Savings
By eliminating unused CSS, it reduces the amount of data that needs to be transmitted and stored, potentially saving on hosting and bandwidth costs.
Improved Maintenance
With a reduction in CSS file size, future maintenance becomes easier and more manageable, making it simpler to update or refactor code.

Possible disadvantages of Unused CSS finder

False Positives
May incorrectly identify CSS as unused if the tool does not recognize dynamic changes or conditional loading, which can lead to accidental removal of necessary styles.
Dependency on External Tool
Relying on an external tool could present privacy and security concerns, especially when sharing potentially sensitive code and styling information.
Manual Verification
Requires manual verification of results to ensure important styles are not removed, which can be time-consuming and somewhat negate the tool's time savings.
Incompatibility with Complex Frameworks
Might not effectively handle complex CSS frameworks or preprocessors, where styles are used indirectly or dynamically through Javascript or server-side frameworks.

Simply Static features and specs

Security
Since Simply Static generates static HTML files, there are significantly fewer vulnerabilities compared to dynamic websites that rely on databases and server-side scripts.
Performance
Static sites load faster because they serve pre-generated HTML files directly from the server, minimizing processing time and server load.
Cost-Effective
With fewer server-side resources required, hosting static sites tends to be more affordable compared to dynamic sites.
Scalability
Static sites can easily handle high traffic volumes since they don’t require database queries or dynamic content generation for each request.
Simplified Backup
Backing up a static site is straightforward as it involves simply copying the HTML, CSS, and asset files.

Possible disadvantages of Simply Static

Lack of Dynamic Content
Static sites cannot change or load new content dynamically without regenerating the static files, which can limit functionality for interactive elements.
Time-Consuming Updates
Updating content can be cumbersome, requiring a full regeneration of the site to reflect content changes.
Limited Plugin Support
Many WordPress plugins, particularly those relying on backend processing, are not compatible with static site setups.
SEO Management Challenges
Static sites might need extra effort to manage SEO elements dynamically, especially for large websites with frequent content changes.
Complex Integration
Integrating third-party services or APIs might require additional setups or modifications since traditional methods expecting server-side processing may not work.