Of the ten construction company websites I measured, Maman Corporation scored a perfect 100 and loaded its main content in 1.2 seconds from a 287 KB page. Only one other site cleared Google’s 2.5 second target. The heaviest page shipped 47.9 MB, the slowest took 103.7 seconds on a mobile connection, and not a single one of the ten used the structured data type that Schema.org publishes for contractors.
Every other list of construction websites I found ranks sites on how they look. I wanted to know something a screenshot cannot tell you: do these pages actually work for the person holding a phone? So I ran them through Google’s own tools on 12 August 2026 and wrote down what came back.
How I Measured These Construction Websites
Every homepage went through Google’s PageSpeed Insights API on the mobile setting. That returns four numbers: the performance score, Largest Contentful Paint (how long until the main content appears), Cumulative Layout Shift (how much the page moves while it loads), and total transfer weight. I then fetched each homepage directly to count click-to-call links and read whatever JSON-LD structured data the page carried. No site was given a score I did not measure.
These are lab measurements taken on a single day, not permanent grades. A site can be rebuilt next week. What they do show is how each page was built, and that does not change on its own.
The four checks, and why each one matters
- Load speed. Largest Contentful Paint on mobile. Google treats under 2.5 seconds as good, measured at the 75th percentile of real visits. A developer comparing three contractors treats anything slower as a reason to close the tab.
- Layout stability. Cumulative Layout Shift. Under 0.1 passes. Above it, the page rearranges itself after it appears and people tap the wrong thing.
- Click-to-call links. How many tap-to-call links sit on the homepage. On a phone this is the shortest route from an enquiry to a conversation.
- Structured data. Whether the site tells search engines what kind of business it is. Schema.org has a GeneralContractor type built for exactly this.
The Results: Ten Construction Websites, Side by Side
Sorted by performance score, worst to best reading down the table. Two sites are handled differently and I have explained why underneath.
| Website | Score | Load (LCP) | Shift (CLS) | Page weight | Call links | Schema |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maman Corporation New York, USA | 100 | 1.2s | 0 | 287 KB | 0 | none |
| JHL Constructors Denver, USA | 89 | 3.2s | 0 | 10,086 KB | 1 | 5 types |
| McCarthy Building Companies National, USA | 86 | 2.3s | 0.073 | 7,249 KB | 0 | 3 types |
| Mace Group London, UK | 59 | 9s | 0.04 | 1,733 KB | not readable | not readable |
| Al Naboodah Group Dubai, UAE | 58 | 12.4s | 0 | 30,957 KB | 1 | none |
| ALEC Engineering & Contracting Dubai, UAE | 52 | 19.2s | 0.013 | 4,531 KB | 3 | none |
| ASGC Construction Dubai, UAE | 51 | 20.3s | 0 | 21,579 KB | 0 | none |
| Willmott Dixon Hertfordshire, UK | 41 | 50s | 0.927 | 18,152 KB | 0 | none |
| Balfour Beatty London, UK | 35 | 103.7s | 0.017 | 44,280 KB | 0 | none |
| Khansaheb Dubai, UAE | 3 | 77.5s | 0.941 | 47,876 KB | 0 | 1 types |
Dutco Group is deliberately absent. PageSpeed could not load its homepage reliably and my own request to it failed, so any figure I published would be a guess. Mace Group keeps its speed figures, which come from Google’s crawler, but its homepage answered my direct read with a 403. I cannot report its call links or markup either way, so I have not scored them as zero.
Three That Load Properly
Three of the ten sites scored 60 or better on mobile, and all three of them are American firms. Two cleared Google’s 2.5 second target for Largest Contentful Paint, which no site outside this group managed. That is where the good news stops. Every one of the three still leaves something obvious on the table, and in two cases it is the same thing: no way to call them from a phone.
Maman Corporation (100/100)
A perfect 100, and the only site here that loads in close to a second.
What works: The whole page weighs 287 KB and the HTML document is 26 KB. That is roughly one hundred and sixty-seventh the weight of the heaviest site on this list, and it buys a 1.2 second load with no layout shift at all. A New York contractor is beating firms a hundred times its size on the only measurement a visitor feels.
What it costs them: Not one line of structured data, and no click-to-call link anywhere on the homepage. The fastest site here is also the hardest for a search engine to categorise and the hardest for a phone user to call from. Speed earned the visit; nothing on the page captures it.
JHL Constructors (89/100)
The best structured data on the list, wrapped around a 10 MB page.
What works: Five schema types including Organization, BreadcrumbList and ImageObject. Nobody else here comes close, and it shows in how cleanly a search engine can read the company, its pages and its project photography. Zero layout shift too.
What it costs them: Ten megabytes. The score of 89 flatters it because the content still paints at 3.2 seconds, which misses Google’s 2.5 second target. All that markup is describing a page most of whose weight the visitor never needed.
McCarthy Building Companies (86/100)
One of only two sites here that clears Google’s 2.5 second target.
What works: A firm founded in 1864 running a 2.3 second load and a CLS of 0.073, both inside Google’s thresholds. It carries Organization and WebSite markup with a SearchAction, so its own site search is exposed to Google. For a company at this scale, that is a well-run site.
What it costs them: Seven megabytes to deliver it, and no click-to-call link at all. The speed holds up because the engineering is good, not because the page is light, and a heavy page is one hosting change away from being a slow one.
Five That Lose Visitors on Load
These scored between 40 and 59. Several are among the largest contractors in the UK and the UAE, which is the point: budget does not buy a fast website, and page weight does not care how many towers you have built.
Mace Group (59/100)
The second lightest page here, and still nine seconds to paint.
What works: At 1.7 MB it ships a fraction of what the other large contractors do, and its layout shift of 0.04 is comfortably inside the 0.1 threshold. The page is not heavy. Something else is holding it up.
What it costs them: Nine seconds to load 1.7 MB means the delay is in how the page is built and served, not in how much it carries. This is the one site here that would gain most from a rebuild rather than an image squeeze. Its homepage also refused our direct read with a 403, so we cannot report its markup either way.
Al Naboodah Group (58/100)
Thirty megabytes, and a perfectly stable layout while it loads.
What works: A CLS of exactly zero. Nothing moves once painting starts, which is harder to achieve than it sounds and is the single thing this site does better than almost everyone here.
What it costs them: It takes 12.4 seconds to get there. Thirty megabytes on a mobile connection is a page most visitors will never see finish, and a stable layout does not help a visitor who has already left. No structured data either.
ALEC Engineering & Contracting (52/100)
The most click-to-call links on the list, behind a nineteen second load.
What works: Three tap-to-call links, more than any other site measured, and a near-perfect CLS of 0.013. Somebody here thought about how a visitor actually makes contact, which is more than most of this list can claim.
What it costs them: Nineteen seconds. The page is 4.5 MB, which is not the heaviest here, so the load time points at render-blocking resources rather than raw weight. Three phone links are worth nothing if the page never reaches the visitor.
ASGC Construction (51/100)
Twenty seconds to first paint, with nothing to show a search engine.
What works: Zero layout shift, and the 21 MB is at least delivered without the page jumping around underneath the visitor.
What it costs them: Twenty point three seconds is past the point where a mobile visitor has already gone back to the results page. No structured data, no click-to-call. A contractor of this size is invisible to both the searcher and the search engine.
Willmott Dixon (41/100)
A layout shift of 0.927, more than nine times the failing line.
What works: At 18 MB it is not the heaviest page here, and the score of 41 is not the lowest. That is the entire case for the defence.
What it costs them: A CLS of 0.927 means the page rearranges itself substantially after it paints. On a phone that is the difference between tapping "our projects" and tapping something else entirely. Combined with a fifty second load, this is the most frustrating page of the ten to actually use.
Two That Are Broken, Not Just Slow
Two sites scored under 40, and they belong in their own category. At this point the problem stops being performance tuning and starts being whether the page functions on a phone at all. Between them these two carry the worst load time, the worst layout shift and the two heaviest pages in the whole sample. Both are long-established firms with the budget to fix it.
Balfour Beatty (35/100)
Forty-four megabytes, and a hundred and three seconds on a throttled mobile connection.
What works: A CLS of 0.017 is genuinely excellent, and better than most sites of any size manage. The layout is rock solid once it arrives.
What it costs them: Getting there takes 103.7 seconds in PageSpeed’s mobile test. Forty-four megabytes is not a page, it is a download. For the largest infrastructure group in the UK this is the widest gap on the list between what a company is and what its homepage communicates.
Khansaheb (3/100)
A performance score of 3 out of 100, the lowest we have measured on any list.
What works: It has BreadcrumbList markup, so a search engine can at least read the site’s hierarchy. That is the only measurement here that lands on the right side of the line.
What it costs them: Forty-seven point nine megabytes, 77.5 seconds to paint, and a layout shift of 0.941. All three are the worst or near-worst figures on this page. A firm with 89 years behind it is running the slowest construction homepage we measured, and khansaheb.ae does not even serve it directly, it redirects to a longer domain.
What the Numbers Kept Showing
Size predicted slowness, not speed
The three fastest sites belong to the three smallest firms on the list. The slowest belong to a UK infrastructure group and a contractor with 89 years of history. Across these ten, scale ran against performance rather than with it. I did not expect that going in, and it is the single most useful thing in the data for a smaller firm: you can beat them on the measurement that matters, and it will cost you a fraction of what they spent.
Weight is the whole story
The order of the weight column and the order of the score column are close to the same list. Nothing else predicted speed as reliably. For context, the 2025 HTTP Archive Web Almanac puts the median mobile page at 2.56 MB. Eight of these ten are heavier than that, and four of them are more than eight times heavier.
The free signal nobody claimed
Schema.org publishes a GeneralContractor type. It inherits from HomeAndConstructionBusiness, which sits under LocalBusiness, so it carries every LocalBusiness property a contractor would want: service area, opening hours, address, geo coordinates. Not one of these ten used it, and only three carried any structured data at all.
This matters more now than it did five years ago. Answer engines and AI search results lean on structured data to decide what a business is and whether it fits a query. A contractor with no markup is asking every one of them to guess. Of everything on this page, it is the cheapest thing to fix and the one nobody has claimed. It is a block of code in the page head, and it takes an afternoon.
How to Check Your Own Construction Website
Run your homepage through Google’s free PageSpeed Insights on the mobile setting and write down the score and the LCP figure. Then open your site on your own phone and count the taps between landing and reaching a human. If the score is under 50 or that count is more than one, you have found the same problem most of the sites above have.
If you would rather I looked, I will run the same four checks on your site and send you the numbers with no obligation attached. We do construction company website design from $799 with the full price list published, and speed is not an upgrade in any of our packages. It is where we start. You can also ask for the measurements directly.
If you run a plumbing or home service firm rather than a construction one, I ran the same four checks on nine plumbing sites in a separate piece, and only one of those cleared the 2.5 second target.
