Mobile PageSpeed Insights scores for 15 Edmonton web design and marketing agencies span 22 to 100, tested 2026-08-10 with Google's public API. Choice OMG scored 84, fifth of the 14 agencies whose test completed, ahead of nine tracked competitors and behind four. One agency's test did not finish because a redirect broke Lighthouse's measurement; that row reports the error and carries no score. Every number below is copied from the raw API response: no figure is estimated, and every agency's result is published, including the ones that beat ours.
"Our websites are faster" is a claim any agency can type. This page is the alternative: a public, third-party API run against 15 Edmonton web design and marketing agencies, including us, with the full JSON kept and the table rebuilt from it every month.
Methodology
Every score on this page comes from the Google PageSpeed Insights API v5, run against each domain's homepage with strategy=mobile. The test date is 2026-08-10. Two limitations matter and are stated here so nobody has to take our word for what the numbers mean:
- Single-run lab data. Each score below reflects a single Lighthouse run per domain. Lighthouse lab metrics (especially the simulated Largest Contentful Paint, or LCP, figure) can swing by several seconds between runs on the same site depending on server load and network conditions at test time; a single run is a snapshot. That is why this table carries a test date and gets refreshed on a schedule (see Refresh cadence below).
- Lab data. Every score, LCP, and CLS figure below is Lighthouse lab data: measured against a simulated mobile device and network profile, never against real visitor traffic. Google's Chrome UX Report (field data, drawn from real Chrome users) only exists for sites with enough traffic volume; of the 15 agencies tested, exactly one (heytony.ca) had enough real-user data for Google to report a field Interaction to Next Paint figure, which is labeled "field" in the table. Every other row's speed-responsiveness figure is Total Blocking Time, Lighthouse's lab proxy for INP, labeled accordingly. Nothing here is presented as real-user data unless the table says so.
Domain set. The 15 domains are choice.marketing (us) plus the 14 Edmonton-area web design and marketing agencies that come up in our own SERP diagnosis and AI-citation tracking: adster.ca, bernum.ca, bubbleup.ca, creologic.ca, digitize.ca, getsocialyeg.com, heytony.ca, highlevelyeg.ca, irondevs.com, keencreative.ca, parilondigital.com, topdraw.com, web3.ca, and yegdigital.com.
Raw source. Every score below traces to a raw PSI API response we kept on file, matched to a version-controlled runner script that queries the same 15 domains the same way. Anyone with the free API can re-run this exact list and check our numbers against theirs.
Mobile performance scores across 15 Edmonton agencies, 2026-08-10
Sorted by performance score, highest first. A domain whose test did not complete is listed with the API's own error, never a guessed score.
| Domain | Performance score (mobile) | LCP (lab) | CLS (lab) | INP (field) / TBT (lab proxy) | Tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| digitize.ca | 100 | 1.1 s | 0 | 0 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| heytony.ca | 92 | 2.9 s | 0 | 158 ms INP, field data (fast) | 2026-08-10 |
| creologic.ca | 92 | 2.7 s | 0 | 10 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| yegdigital.com | 89 | 3.5 s | 0.001 | 0 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| choice.marketing | 84 | 1.5 s | 0.06 | 610 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| highlevelyeg.ca | 79 | 3.9 s | 0 | 0 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| irondevs.com | 75 | 5.0 s | 0.058 | 20 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| bernum.ca | 75 | 4.4 s | 0 | 30 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| parilondigital.com | 69 | 9.4 s | 0.083 | 80 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| getsocialyeg.com | 60 | 8.5 s | 0 | 70 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| bubbleup.ca | 55 | 13.7 s | 0 | 80 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| topdraw.com | 54 | 4.2 s | 0.078 | 850 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| web3.ca | 52 | 11.6 s | 0 | 460 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| adster.ca | 22 | 12.8 s | 0.425 | 2,060 ms TBT (lab proxy, no field data) | 2026-08-10 |
| keencreative.ca | Test did not complete | n/a | n/a | n/a | API error: NO_LCP. keencreative.ca redirects to keencreative.com; Lighthouse flagged the redirect and could not capture an LCP value. |
Digitize.ca, heytony.ca, and creologic.ca all scored above us. We are not hiding that: this table is the same one a competitor's prospect would see if they ran the same free tool. What we can say with a source behind it is where we land relative to the full set: 84 beats nine of the thirteen agencies whose test completed and trails four.
Which Edmonton web design agencies focus on Core Web Vitals and site speed?
Four agencies show mobile performance scores of 89 or higher: digitize.ca (100), heytony.ca (92), creologic.ca (92), and yegdigital.com (89). A score in that range on a single Lighthouse run points to a site built with speed as a design constraint: minimal render-blocking resources and controlled main-thread work, though LCP still varies across the group, from 1.1 seconds (digitize.ca) to 3.5 seconds (yegdigital.com) on this run. At the other end, five agencies scored 60 or lower (getsocialyeg.com, bubbleup.ca, topdraw.com, web3.ca, adster.ca), several with LCP past eight seconds, the point past which most mobile visitors have already left before the main content finishes painting.
How do Edmonton web design agencies compare on conversion focus, speed, and SEO readiness?
Speed alone does not prove a site converts, but it sets the ceiling: a visitor who leaves before the page paints never sees the offer, the form, or the phone number. Our own build standard targets sub-2-second LCP and WCAG 2.1 accessibility on every client site, detailed on our Edmonton web design page alongside the builds we have shipped locally. Every conversion and revenue figure we publish elsewhere on this site, including the case study behind our own web design work, carries a source line on our claims page: we do not attach a lead-volume or revenue number to this performance index because we have not run that correlation study on these 15 domains, and a number without that source would break the same discipline this page exists to demonstrate.
What this table does support: a mobile score in the 80s or above, on a single run against a live production site, is a reasonable floor to expect from an agency selling web design as a service. Four of the fifteen agencies we track clear that bar on this run. If your current site scores well below where you'd expect after reading this table, that gap is measurable with the same free tool we used, before you talk to anyone about fixing it.
Refresh cadence
This table is re-run monthly, same 15 domains and same methodology; the date column above updates with each run, so a reader always knows how recent the comparison is.
Sources and further reading
- Google PageSpeed Insights API v5 documentation: the API this page's entire table is drawn from, mobile strategy, single run per domain.
- Choice OMG's claims page: every conversion and revenue claim we publish, each with its source.
- Edmonton web design: our build standard (sub-2-second LCP target, WCAG 2.1 accessibility) and recent local builds.
- Raw PSI JSON responses for all 15 domains, kept alongside the runner script that produced this table, available on request for independent verification.