Audit overview
Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
2High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
3High 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)
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
'unsafe-inline' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
1 link(s) with no accessible text
Links with no accessible text (empty <a></a>, image-only no alt, icon-only no aria-label) are unidentifiable to screen readers.
5 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
7 third-party resources (46% of weight)
Informational: third-party resource count and their share of page weight. High share caps perf gains from frontend optimization.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
PLN 2,025 investment → PLN 39,849/month returns + EUR 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
6 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~23%.
- 5 form field(s) without a labelScreen readers skip unlabeled fields; autofill can't identify them; checkout abandonment spikes→ Associate every input with a visible <label for="…">; add autocomplete attributes
- 130 broken link(s) on the pageClicks land on 404s — trust drops and the session often ends→ Fix or remove the broken destinations surfaced on the Content tab
- 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
- 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
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
€500.000
- 2 of 2 <nav> elements are unlabeledEAA: EUR 1.000 – EUR 500.000
- Skip navigation link is missing (WCAG 2.4.1)EAA: EUR 1.000 – EUR 500.000
- 5 control(s) without accessible labelEAA: EUR 1.000 – EUR 500.000
Bounce-Rate Cost
PLN 35 658 /mo
+23.5pp bounce · ~2,346 lost visitors/mo
CPC: PLN 15.20
Bandwidth Waste
PLN 0,35 /mo
1085.8 MB/mo × 0.320 PLN/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~109 KB per page loadSaves PLN 0,35/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.
3.32 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
3.70 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.
0.077
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.84 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.
3.70 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
747 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
787 ms
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.
0.008
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
796 ms
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
787 ms
Categories
8Performance
7 third-party resources (46% of weight)
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Accessibility
1 link(s) with no accessible text
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 Bootstrap sites score 95+ on Content; you're at 87 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of Google Font API sites score 95+ on Content; you're at 87 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Bootstrap 4.6.2, on PHP, with Cloudflare CDN
Stack Architecture
Bootstrap 4.6.2
Google Font API Google Search Console HSTS 
HTTP/3 
Open Graph 
Tailwind CSS 
jQuery 3.7.1
PHP 
Cloudflare All Detected Technologies (10)
Cloudflare is a web-infrastructure and website-security company, providing content-delivery-network services, DDoS mitigation, Internet security, and distributed domain-name-server services.
PHP is a general-purpose scripting language used for web development.
Bootstrap is a free and open-source CSS framework directed at responsive, mobile-first front-end web development. It contains CSS and JavaScript-based design templates for typography, forms, buttons, navigation, and other interface components.
Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
jQuery is a JavaScript library which is a free, open-source software designed to simplify HTML DOM tree traversal and manipulation, as well as event handling, CSS animation, and Ajax.
Observations (3)
No build tool detected
A framework (Bootstrap) 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.
Bootstrap version may be outdated
Detected Bootstrap 4.6.2. The current major version is 5. Consider updating for security patches and new features.
Complex technology stack detected
10 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/3b112eaf-5b0a-48f7-b5e9-2850e11fd4cf)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/3b112eaf-5b0a-48f7-b5e9-2850e11fd4cf"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcutt.ly" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcutt.lyExport & 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
3 sprints · 14h total → projected A (94)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+3Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 1 link(s) with no accessible text
- · 7 third-party resources (46% of weight)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 5 control(s) without accessible label
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+5Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source