The last few versions of Twitter Bootstap can be customized to include only the components you need.

The full version, with all the components, can be served from a wide variety of public CDNs (MaxCDN, Google APIs, CloudFlare JS CDN...), but if you make a custom version, you are forced to host it on your own server.

Is it worth it, in terms of site performance, to scrape off a few Kb and loose the ability to load your static assets from a fast, safe (and free) CDN?


Using a content delivery network for one CSS and JS framework isn't going to make a major difference to the average site. The more files you serve on a CDN the more beneficial it becomes and especially if your site receives high traffic because this takes load of your server.

Another factor is that CDN creates additional DNS lookups so if your using multiples such as MaxCDN, CDNjs, GoogleFonts and Cloudflare that means you have 5 DNS lookups, your site and 4 externals.

Ideally you should aim to use as few content delivery networks as possible but have as much content as possible stored on them, also creating fallbacks is always a good practice.

  • I'm not talking about hand-editing the main CSS file but compiling a custom one (getbootstrap.com/customize), there is is a huge difference. Custom compiles are supposed to be upgradeable and future-proof. – NiloVelez May 9 '15 at 14:07
  • 1
    I've edited my answer. – Simon Hayter May 9 '15 at 14:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.