Audit overview
Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
3High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
2High impact, requires investment.
Easy Improvements
0Small gains, minimal effort.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Deprioritize
0Low impact, high effort — do last.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Screenshots
Top Priorities (5)
10 image(s) missing alt attribute
Each image without alt text is a WCAG 1.1.1 failure — invisible to screen-reader users, lost from Google Image Search.
2 button(s) with no accessible text
Buttons with no accessible text (icon-only, no aria-label) can't be activated by voice control or understood by screen readers.
34 image-only link(s) without alt text
Image-only links with no alt are unidentifiable to screen-reader users — link's destination is invisible.
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.
is missing width/height — may cause layout shift
Performance issues directly impact user engagement and conversion rates.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€397 investment → €6,736/month returns + EUR 120,500,000 risk avoided
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
8 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~22%.
- Page loads in 3.7sEvery additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 1.2s over→ Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
- High main-thread blocking timePage is non-interactive for 368ms after first paint→ Defer third-party scripts and split large bundles
- No HSTS headerReturning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request→ Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
- No Content-Security-Policy headerHigher XSS blast radius — one compromised script can exfiltrate the checkout form→ Ship a reporting-only CSP first, then enforce once violations are clean
- No structured dataNo rich-result eligibility in Google — lower SERP CTR vs competitors with stars and prices→ Add JSON-LD for your page type (Product, Article, FAQPage, LocalBusiness, …)
Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.
Remediation cost
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.
Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead
Warning:Cost of inaction
Compliance Risk
€120.500.000
- No privacy policy link detectedGDPR: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundGDPR: EUR 5.000 – EUR 10.000.000
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundGDPR: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000
Bounce-Rate Cost
€4.827 /mo
+21.9pp bounce · ~2,194 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€0,42 /mo
5634.6 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~563 KB per page loadSaves €0,42/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.
Unique monthly visitors from your analytics
Purchases, signups, or key actions
Optional — for revenue estimation
more engaged visitors from reduced bounce
Fix 4 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
Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers
Lighthouse
Mobile
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
2.53 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
3.74 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
368 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.007
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.34 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
13.83 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.46 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.65 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
0 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.147
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
16.70 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
1.65 s
Categories
8Performance
is missing width/height — may cause layout shift
Security
All checks pass
Accessibility
10 image(s) missing alt attribute
SEO
All checks pass
Infrastructure
All checks pass
Compliance
All checks pass
Content
All checks pass
Sustainability
All checks pass
How you compare
Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.
Top 10% of Amazon Route 53 sites score 68+ on Accessibility; you're at 58 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Acuity Scheduling, on Apache/PHP, hosted on Apache HTTP Server
Stack Architecture
Amplitude 
Google Tag Manager 
PayPal 
Acuity Scheduling Amazon Route 53 Facebook Google Search Console Google Workspace HSTS 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
TrustArc 
core-js 3.38.1
PHP 
Apache Apache HTTP Server All Detected Technologies (16)
Apache is a free and open-source cross-platform web server software.
PHP is a general-purpose scripting language used for web development.
Acuity Scheduling is a cloud-based appointment scheduling software solution.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
Priority Hints exposes a mechanism for developers to signal a relative priority for browsers to consider when fetching resources.
TrustArc provides software and services to help corporations update their privacy management processes so they comply with government laws and best practices.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
Amplitude is a web and mobile analytics solution with cross-platform user journey tracking, user behavior analysis and segmentation capabilities.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system (TMS) that allows you to quickly and easily update measurement codes and related code fragments collectively known as tags on your website or mobile app.
PayPal is an online payments system that supports online money transfers and serves as an electronic alternative to traditional paper methods like checks and money orders.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Acuity Scheduling) 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.
Complex technology stack detected
16 technologies identified. A complex stack increases maintenance burden and attack surface. Consider whether all components are actively needed.
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.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/results/1e23d2c3-76df-4cfb-9edc-9b3cb4b10d65)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/1e23d2c3-76df-4cfb-9edc-9b3cb4b10d65"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Facuityscheduling.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Facuityscheduling.comExport & share
Download the audit, share with your team, or grab a fix plan ready to copy into your tracker.
Copies markdown to clipboard
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 B (82)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+4Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · 2 button(s) with no accessible text
- · 34 image-only link(s) without alt text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+2Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 10 image(s) missing alt attribute
- · is missing width/height — may cause layout shift