Skip to content
Scanned
2026-04-16 17:48 UTC
Worker
🇺🇸 New York
Duration
2.3m
Vs prev

Audit overview

4 categories need attention: Performance, and 3 others.

Fix Priority Matrix

5 findings

Quick Wins

3

High impact, low effort — start here.

Strategic

2

High impact, requires investment.

Easy Improvements

0

Small gains, minimal effort.

Nothing in this quadrant — good news.

Deprioritize

0

Low impact, high effort — do last.

Nothing in this quadrant — good news.

← Low effort High effort →

Screenshots

DESKTOP + MOBILE
Mobile
Mobile screenshot

Top Priorities (5)

Sorted by impact
Critical: 1

Page weighs 15.7 MB (4.5 MB transferred)

Informational: total page weight (uncompressed) and bytes actually transferred over the wire.

Performance › Page Weight Budget
Critical: 2

2 control(s) without accessible label

Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.

Accessibility › Form Accessibility
Critical: 3

No <main> landmark found

Without a <main> landmark, screen-reader users can't skip past the navigation to the page content — every page starts with re-reading the menu.

Accessibility › Landmark Structure
Warning: 4

124 third-party resources (100% of weight)

Informational: third-party resource count and their share of page weight. High share caps perf gains from frontend optimization.

Performance › Page Weight Inventory
Warning: 5

125 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing

High HTTP request count — bundling, sprite-ing, and HTTP/2 server push can reduce per-request overhead.

Performance › Page Weight Budget
What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. Your LCP of 5.6s exceeds Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold and the 3 performance issues below directly contribute to it. Addressing the critical issues below would have the most immediate impact on your conversion rate.
Your LCP is 5.6s — fixing the 3 performance criticals could bring it under Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold.
2 accessibility issues exclude users who rely on assistive technology.

Business case

What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.

Return on investment

₽18,083 investment → ₽293,973/month returns

Investment
₽18 083
5.2 h · 3 findings
Monthly returns
₽293 973
₽3 527 672/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+19408% Y1
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
₽18 0830.1 mo payback · +19408% Y1
Optimistic scenario assuming the top 3 capture most of the upside. Real-world recovery typically falls between this projection and the full-fix ROI above.
₽583 — in quick wins — start here for the fastest payback

Figures combine localized regulatory fine ceilings, search/conversion value priced against local CPC, and bandwidth waste estimates. Results depend on implementation quality and audience composition. Not legal or financial advice.

Conversion barriers

10 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~34%.

Barriers
10
2 crit 8 warn
Bounce delta
+34pp
added vs baseline
Score
56
C
Speed
2
Trust
2
Usability
1
Content
3
Nav
2
  • Page takes 5.6s to load
    Users abandon at ~3s — you're 3.1s over the 2.5s threshold
    → Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
  • Page feels frozen for 72.9s
    Clicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs
    → Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
  • No HSTS header
    Returning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request
    → Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
  • No Content-Security-Policy header
    Higher XSS blast radius — one compromised script can exfiltrate the checkout form
    → Ship a reporting-only CSP first, then enforce once violations are clean
  • 2 form field(s) without a label
    Screen readers skip unlabeled fields; autofill can't identify them; checkout abandonment spikes
    → Associate every input with a visible <label for="…">; add autocomplete attributes

Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.

Remediation cost

₽18,083 5.2 developer hours at ₽3500/hr
Quick wins
₽583 1 fixes in ~10 minutes

Start here for the best return on investment

Cost by category

Cost by effort level

Adjust assumptions

Team composition

Multiplier applied to dev hours to reflect QA, design, and PM overhead. Use Dev only for solo work; Full team for projects with formal review processes.

/hr

Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead

How developer rates are sourced

Warning:Cost of inaction

₽204 584 / month at risk ~₽2 455 003 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Bounce-Rate Cost

₽204 480 /mo

+34.1pp bounce · ~3,408 lost visitors/mo

CPC: RUB 60.00

Bandwidth Waste

₽104 /mo

14272.0 MB/mo × 7.273 RUB/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~1.4 MB per page load
    Saves ₽104/mo

Compliance figures represent the statutory maximum fine for the most severe triggered category, capped per regulation — not the sum of per-finding penalties. Based on published regulatory fine ranges. This is not legal advice.

Compliance methodology · SEO assumptions · Bandwidth model

Your performance is already good — improvements may show diminishing returns

Unique monthly visitors from your analytics

Purchases, signups, or key actions

Optional — for revenue estimation

additional conversions/month

more engaged visitors from reduced bounce

potential monthly revenue
Current bounce (est.)
After fixes (est.)
Estimated bounce reduction

Fix 3 critical issues to capture this value

How this is calculated

Based on Google/Deloitte research ("Milliseconds Make Millions") showing a ~7% bounce rate increase per additional second of LCP above the 2.5s "Good" threshold.

Your site's LCP: → estimated after fixes.

These are estimates based on industry research — actual results vary

Bounce-rate model & assumptions

Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers

Lighthouse

Categories

8
Avg score 70.1

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

Facebook · 1419 peers
You 71
·
Avg 73
At average
0 50 100
Content P3SEO P7Performance P10Security P89Compliance P16Sustainability P25Infrastructure P36Accessibility P57

Top 10% of Facebook sites score 95+ on Content; you're at 66 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 22% of Facebook sites See full Facebook benchmark →
Google Search Console · 3881 peers
You 71
·
Avg 73
At average
0 50 100
Content P5Performance P7SEO P7Security P85Compliance P18Sustainability P19Infrastructure P36Accessibility P55

Top 10% of Google Search Console sites score 96+ on Content; you're at 66 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 21% of Google Search Console sites See full Google Search Console benchmark →

Technology stack

Facebook, with Nginx CDN

5 technologies detected 2 stack layers 1 with CPE identifier Standard

Stack Architecture

Framework
Facebook Google Search Console HSTS reCAPTCHA
CDN
Nginx

All Detected Technologies (5)

Nginx is a web server that can also be used as a reverse proxy, load balancer, mail proxy and HTTP cache.

Categories Web servers, Reverse proxies Website https://nginx.org/en Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header: nginx
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →
Categories Analytics Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence TXT record: facebook-domain-verification=th2gu4vk4s6qecvre8dvumhnwl7h2g
Categories Analytics Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence TXT record: google-site-verification=CV3xfaV44XjuD0UuMhAZgDiW_INxntXilGrWwzVqdjw

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.

Categories Security Website https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797#section-6.1 Detected by BeaverCheck

reCAPTCHA is a free service from Google that helps protect websites from spam and abuse.

Categories Security Website https://www.google.com/recaptcha/ Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Script URL contains www.google.com/recaptcha: https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js

Observations (1)

No build tool detected

A framework (Facebook) was detected but no bundler was identified. The build tool may not be detectable from output patterns, or the site may use the framework's built-in bundler.

Show your score

Drop this badge on your README, marketing site, or status page. It auto-updates every time the audit re-runs and links back to this report.

BeaverCheck badge

This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.

[![BeaverCheck](https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2F2gis.com)](https://beavercheck.com/results/021b804d-55bd-4a1e-9392-8fea539ad9f1)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/021b804d-55bd-4a1e-9392-8fea539ad9f1"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2F2gis.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2F2gis.com

Export & share

Download the audit, share with your team, or grab a fix plan ready to copy into your tracker.

Share

Copies markdown to clipboard

Export
Download Markdown Report Download JSON

Fix Plan

Three-week roadmap to ship the audit's findings, with one-click copy targets for your tracker.

Three-week fix plan

2 sprints · 5h total → projected C (77)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+5

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

3 findings 0h → C (76)
  • · Page weighs 15.7 MB (4.5 MB transferred)
  • · No <main> landmark found
  • · 124 third-party resources (100% of weight)

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+1

Medium effort, high structural impact

2 findings 5h → C (77)
  • · 2 control(s) without accessible label
  • · 125 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing

Send Feedback