When you’re shortlisting PSG vendors, most of the research and proposal review happens on a laptop — not a phone. Desktop website speed is the signal closest to how you’ll actually experience the vendor’s brand during the decision. We measured all 278 PSG-approved vendors on desktop to give you an independent benchmark for that moment.
Why We Measured Desktop Too
A vendor’s mobile site matters for their own customers. A vendor’s desktop site matters for you — the decision-maker reading their case studies, opening their proposal deck, and skimming their pricing page during a Zoom call.
Desktop scores also remove one layer of noise: mobile scoring simulates a throttled 4G connection on a low-powered phone, which penalises sites heavily for any optimisation gap. Desktop uses more forgiving thresholds, so the score more closely reflects genuine quality of investment, not just how well the site holds up on a weak network.
For the “why measure vendor websites at all” background, see the mobile benchmark guide. The reasoning is the same; only the device changes.
What the Data Shows
The Median Desktop Score Is 61 Out of 100
Across all 278 PSG-approved vendors, the median Lighthouse performance score on desktop is 61 out of 100 — meaningfully higher than the mobile median of 47.
| Share of vendors | What it means | |
|---|---|---|
| Score 90+ | 33 vendors (12.2%) | Genuinely fast on desktop |
| Score 50–89 | 57% of vendors | Moderate performance |
| Score below 50 | 30% of vendors | Significant performance gaps even on desktop |
Three times as many vendors reach the 90+ bar on desktop as on mobile. That’s still only one in eight — genuinely fast desktop sites remain the exception among PSG-approved vendors.
For the plain-language explanation of why desktop scores almost always look healthier than mobile ones — and why that gap is not a reason to discount the mobile number — see our sister site’s Mobile vs Desktop: Where Singapore B2B Sites Lose the Most Speed.
Most Core Web Vitals Pass on Desktop
Core Web Vitals use the same thresholds regardless of device, but sites almost always perform better on desktop because the hardware is faster. Of the 101 vendors with enough real-user traffic for field measurement:
| Pass rate | What it measures | |
|---|---|---|
| LCP | 73% | How fast the main content loads |
| INP | 96% | How quickly the site responds when you click |
| CLS | 74% | Whether things jump around as the page loads |
56% of measurable vendors pass all three Core Web Vitals on desktop — more than double the 23% pass rate on mobile. If a vendor’s desktop experience is still shaky, mobile is almost certainly worse.
SEO and Best Practices Are Strong
Lighthouse measures three additional categories alongside performance: SEO, accessibility, and best practices. These are scored 0–100 like performance, using Google’s own internal rubric.
| Category | What the data shows | |
|---|---|---|
| SEO | Median 92 — 61% of vendors score 90+ | Most PSG vendors maintain their sites for discovery |
| Best practices | Median 96 — 60% score 90+ | Security headers, HTTPS, and modern web standards are well-covered |
| Accessibility | Median 87 — only 33% score 90+ | This is the weakest signal |
Accessibility Is Where Vendors Leave the Most on the Table
Two thirds of PSG-approved vendors land in the 50–89 range for accessibility — meaning their site is usable by most visitors but has meaningful gaps. Only a third clear the 90+ threshold that indicates a site genuinely works for users with disabilities.
This matters beyond compliance: a vendor who hasn’t invested in making their own site accessible is unlikely to build accessible software for your customers either. If you serve a regulated sector (healthcare, government, financial services) or want to avoid future remediation costs, the accessibility score is a useful filter.
Lab vs Field Data: 36% Have Real-User Measurements
Of the 278 vendors we measured on desktop, 36% have field data (Chrome UX Report) — enough real desktop visitors for Google to observe actual performance. The other 64% are measured by Lighthouse simulation only.
Field data is more meaningful, but the lab-only vendors aren’t “bad” — they just have lower public web traffic to their vendor site, which is normal for B2B sellers. Treat the lab score as a comparable baseline rather than a verdict.
What This Means for Buyers
Don’t shortlist on desktop performance alone. At a median of 61, the desktop speed bar is forgiving. Use it to rule out the bottom 30% (vendors scoring below 50), but don’t over-index on the difference between 75 and 85.
Accessibility is the real filter. Only a third of vendors pass the accessibility bar. If your solution needs to serve customers with disabilities, or you operate in a regulated sector, this score meaningfully narrows your shortlist.
Compare desktop to mobile. A vendor who scores 80 on desktop but 35 on mobile is prioritising the wrong audience — their own customers probably use phones. A vendor with similar scores on both shows consistent investment.
Check the score before your first meeting. Visit pagespeed.web.dev, enter the vendor’s website URL, select the Desktop tab, and read the score. Two minutes, same as the mobile check.
Grantla shows this inline. Every PSG solution page on Grantla now shows mobile, desktop, SEO, accessibility, and best-practices verdicts for the vendor — no separate lookup needed.
Desktop vs Mobile at a Glance
| Desktop | Mobile | |
|---|---|---|
| Median Lighthouse score | 61 | 47 |
| Share of vendors scoring 90+ | 12% | 3% |
| Share scoring below 50 | 30% | 54% |
| All three Core Web Vitals pass | 56% | 23% |
| Field data coverage | 36% | 33% |
The pattern is consistent: desktop is kinder across every measure. The headline in both directions is the same — speed is not where most vendors differentiate themselves. Look at accessibility and SEO for the sharper signal.
Methodology
What we measured: All 278 PSG-approved vendors active in April 2026.
Tool: Google PageSpeed Insights API, which combines Lighthouse (lab simulation) and the Chrome UX Report (real-user field data).
Device strategy: Desktop — reflects the device buyers use most when reviewing proposals, and applies the desktop scoring thresholds.
Level: Origin-level scores (the vendor’s main domain), not individual pages.
Snapshot date: 2026-04-22.
Data types:
- Lab data (Lighthouse): A controlled simulation run by Google’s tooling. Consistent and comparable across all vendors, but not drawn from real visitors.
- Field data (CrUX): Drawn from real Chrome users visiting the site. More meaningful but only available for vendors with sufficient public traffic.
Both data types are public. Neither is provided by the vendors themselves.
Limitations to Keep in Mind
Marketing site speed is not product speed. We measured vendor websites, not the software products they deliver. A vendor with a slow website might deliver an excellent SaaS platform. These are separate things.
Lab scores vary slightly between runs. Lighthouse simulations are consistent but not perfectly stable — a score can shift by a few points between snapshots. Treat scores as ranges, not precise figures.
No CrUX data means lab-only. Vendors with little public web traffic don’t generate enough Chrome user data for field measurement. Their scores are entirely simulated. This is a limitation of the methodology, not a judgment on the vendor.
Scores change. Vendors update their websites. A vendor who scores 45 today might score 75 in three months after a rebuild. This is a snapshot, not a permanent ranking.
Use this data as a conversation starter and a baseline comparison — not as a definitive verdict on any vendor’s capabilities.
Related Guides
- PSG Vendor Mobile Performance Benchmark 2026 — The mobile story: median 47/100, only 3% reach the 90+ bar
- Fastest PSG Vendor Websites 2026 — The top performers by Lighthouse score, named and ranked
- How to Check a PSG Vendor’s Website Speed — The 2-minute buyer’s checklist using PageSpeed Insights
- Core Web Vitals Explained for Singapore SMEs — What LCP, INP, and CLS mean in plain English
- Is PSG Worth It? — Honest ROI assessment for Singapore SMEs
- PSG Grant Explained — Full eligibility, process, and claims guide
- PSG Pitfalls That Get Applications Rejected — Mistakes to avoid before you apply
- Singapore Grants Glossary — key grant terms and definitions
- 本指南中文版 — 2026年PSG供应商桌面端速度基准报告（中文）
Find Your PSG Solution
Compare pricing and vendors across 500+ IMDA pre-approved solutions
Need help with your application?
Check if you're eligible and get your document checklist in 30 minutes.
Check Eligibility