Skip to content
Scanned
2026-07-16 08:02 UTC
Worker
🇺🇸 Santa Clara
Duration
3.5m
Vs prev

Global Performance

6/6 locations

High global latency — average 2611ms across 6 locations, fastest from Madrid (536ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (6047ms). No CDN detected. 6 locations above the 500ms target.

United States - Santa Clara
Full audit
1021ms
DNS 165ms · TLS 160ms
Spain - Madrid
536ms
DNS 42ms · TLS 38ms
United Stated - New York
952ms
DNS 220ms · TLS 94ms
Netherlands - Amsterdam
1521ms
DNS 304ms · TLS 19ms
Singapore - Singapore
5590ms
DNS 606ms · TLS 162ms
Brazil - Sao Paulo
6047ms
DNS 746ms · TLS 206ms
CDN: No CDN · Avg TTFB: 2611ms · Cache: max-age=2419200

Audit overview

Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.

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
Desktop
Desktop screenshot
Mobile
Mobile screenshot

Top Priorities (5)

Sorted by impact
Critical: 1

Content-Security-Policy header is missing

Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.

Security › Security Headers
Critical: 2

HSTS header is missing

Without HSTS, a network attacker can downgrade the very first connection to HTTP and steal the user's session.

Security › Security Headers
Critical: 3

No Content-Security-Policy header found

Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything users type — credentials, payment data, session tokens.

Security › Content Security Policy
Critical: 4

No favicon or icon links detected

Without a favicon, your tab shows a blank icon and bookmarks look unbranded — amateur signal in every browser surface.

Accessibility › Favicon & Branding
Warning: 5

74 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
What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. Your LCP of 5.2s exceeds Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold and the 1 performance issue below directly contributes to it. Accessibility issues exclude users who rely on assistive technology — an estimated 15% of your potential audience. Addressing the critical issues below would have the most immediate impact on your user trust.
3 security gaps detected — browsers may warn visitors about your site.
1 accessibility issue excludes users who rely on assistive technology.
Your LCP is 5.2s — fixing the 1 performance critical could bring it under Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold.

Business case

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

Return on investment

€608 investment → €11,009/month returns + EUR 20,000,000 risk avoided

Investment
€608
6.8 h · 4 findings
Monthly returns
€11.009
€132.107/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+21646% Y1
Regulatory risk avoided EUR 20.000.000
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
€5630.1 mo payback · +23386% 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.
€68 — 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

6 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~35%.

Barriers
6
3 crit 3 warn
Bounce delta
+35pp
added vs baseline
Score
61
C
Speed
2
Trust
2
Usability
2
Content
0
Nav
0
  • Page takes 5.2s to load
    Users abandon at ~3s — you're 2.7s over the 2.5s threshold
    → Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
  • Page feels frozen for 1.1s
    Clicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs
    → Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
  • No viewport meta tag
    Mobile browsers render at desktop width and shrink — text unreadable, tap targets miniature
    → Add <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
  • 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

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

Remediation cost

€608 6.8 developer hours at €90/hr
Quick wins
€68 2 fixes in ~45 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

€7.796 / month at risk ~€93.550 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Compliance Risk

€20.000.000

DSGVO
  • No privacy policy link detected
    DSGVO: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000

Bounce-Rate Cost

€7.795 /mo

+35.4pp bounce · ~3,543 lost visitors/mo

CPC: EUR 2.20

Bandwidth Waste

€0,35 /mo

4661.9 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~466 KB per page load
    Saves €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.

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 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

Bounce-rate model & assumptions

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

Lighthouse

Mobile

40
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
77
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
100
Best Practices Checks for modern web development best practices including HTTPS, no console errors, and secure JavaScript.
100
SEO Measures basic SEO optimizations: meta tags, crawlability, link text, and mobile friendliness.

First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.

3.65 s

Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.

5.22 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

1.14 s

Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.

0.104

Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.

7.68 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.

10.00 s

Desktop

75
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
87
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
100
Best Practices Checks for modern web development best practices including HTTPS, no console errors, and secure JavaScript.
100
SEO Measures basic SEO optimizations: meta tags, crawlability, link text, and mobile friendliness.

First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.

1.67 s

Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.

2.00 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

160 ms

Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.

0.068

Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.

2.37 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.

3.08 s

Categories

6
Avg score 74.5

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

WordPress · 814 peers
You 73
·
Avg 75
At average
0 50 100
Infrastructure P10Security P84Compliance P19Accessibility P24Sustainability P70Performance P48

Top 10% of WordPress sites score 99+ on Infrastructure; you're at 82 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 25% of WordPress sites See full WordPress benchmark →
HTTP/3 · 1558 peers
You 73
·
Avg 75
At average
0 50 100
Infrastructure P9Accessibility P22Security P76Compliance P31Performance P37Sustainability P52

Top 10% of HTTP/3 sites score 97+ on Infrastructure; you're at 82 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 23% of HTTP/3 sites See full HTTP/3 benchmark →

Technology stack

WordPress, on LiteSpeed/PHP

4 technologies detected 4 stack layers 2 with CPE identifier Standard

Stack Architecture

CMS
WordPress
Framework
HTTP/3
Runtime
PHP 8.3.31
Server
LiteSpeed

All Detected Technologies (4)

LiteSpeed is a high-scalability web server.

Categories Web servers Website https://litespeedtech.com Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header: LiteSpeed
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

PHP is a general-purpose scripting language used for web development.

Categories Programming languages Website https://php.net Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence x-powered-by: PHP/8.3.31
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →
Categories CMS Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence robots.txt Disallow pattern: /wp-admin/

HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.

Categories Miscellaneous Website https://httpwg.org/ Detected by BeaverCheck

Observations (3)

Runtime exposed via X-Powered-By header

The X-Powered-By header reveals 'PHP 8.3.31'. Remove this header in production to reduce information leakage.

→ Security

WordPress detected — review security configuration

WordPress sites benefit from: protecting wp-login.php, disabling XML-RPC if unused, restricting REST API access, and keeping all plugins and themes up to date. Check the Security tab for specific findings.

→ Security

No build tool detected

A framework (HTTP/3) 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%2Febizz.org)](https://beavercheck.com/sites/ebizz.org)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/ebizz.org"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Febizz.org" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Febizz.org

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 · 7h total → projected B (83)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+6

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

3 findings 1h → C (79)
  • · HSTS header is missing
  • · No favicon or icon links detected
  • · 74 third-party resources (100% of weight)

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+4

Medium effort, high structural impact

2 findings 6h → B (83)
  • · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
  • · No Content-Security-Policy header found

Send Feedback