Audit overview
3 categories need attention: Performance, and 2 others.
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)
'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.
Page weighs 8.3 MB (4.6 MB transferred)
Informational: total page weight (uncompressed) and bytes actually transferred over the wire.
1 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
4 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.
144 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.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€638 investment → €7,215/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
9 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~33%.
- Page takes 21.8s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 19.3s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 1.2sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 6 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
- 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
€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
€7.214 /mo
+32.8pp bounce · ~3,279 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€1,07 /mo
14446.5 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~1.4 MB per page loadSaves €1,07/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.
7.88 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
21.77 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
1.16 s
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.003
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
8.56 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.
22.19 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
3.03 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
4.06 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
417 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.659
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.92 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.
5.51 s
Categories
8Performance
Page weighs 8.3 MB (4.6 MB transferred)
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Accessibility
1 control(s) without accessible label
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 core-js sites score 85+ on Compliance; you're at 74 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Goober, on styled-components, hosted on Google Cloud, with Envoy CDN
Stack Architecture
Google Tag Manager 
Goober HSTS 
OneTrust 
Open Graph 
React 
React Router 6
Sentry 
Spotify Web API 
Varnish 
core-js 3.48.0
reCAPTCHA 
styled-components 5.3.11
Envoy 
Fastly 
Google Cloud All Detected Technologies (16)
Envoy is an open-source edge and service proxy, designed for cloud-native applications.
Styled components is a CSS-in-JS styling framework that uses tagged template literals in JavaScript.
Goober is a minified CSS-in-JS styling solution.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
OneTrust is a cloud-based data privacy management compliance platform.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
React is an open-source JavaScript library for building user interfaces or UI components.
React Router provides declarative routing for React.
Sentry is an open-source platform for workflow productivity, aggregating errors from across the stack in real time.
Spotify Web API endpoints return JSON metadata about music artists, albums, and tracks, directly from the Spotify Data Catalogue.
Varnish is a reverse caching proxy.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
reCAPTCHA is a free service from Google that helps protect websites from spam and abuse.
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.
Observations (3)
Runtime exposed via X-Powered-By header
The X-Powered-By header reveals 'styled-components 5.3.11'. Remove this header in production to reduce information leakage.
No build tool detected
A framework (Goober) 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/4f19db1c-bdc7-4fe3-9625-1ba4ca62dec4)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/4f19db1c-bdc7-4fe3-9625-1ba4ca62dec4"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.spotify.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.spotify.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
3 sprints · 8h total → projected B (81)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+5Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · Page weighs 8.3 MB (4.6 MB transferred)
- · 4 button(s) with no accessible text
- · 144 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+2Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 1 control(s) without accessible label
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+2Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source