Audit overview
Security and Accessibility need attention; the other 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)
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.
No Content-Security-Policy header found
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything users type — credentials, payment data, session tokens.
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.
3 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
114 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
$750 investment → $15,008/month returns + USD 157,500 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 ~30%.
- Page takes 4.7s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 2.2s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 3.2sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 3 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
- 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
$157,500
- No privacy policy link detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- 1 advertising/retargeting trackers detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
Bounce-Rate Cost
$11,445 /mo
+30.1pp bounce · ~3,012 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 3.80
Bandwidth Waste
$0.65 /mo
8153.0 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~815 KB per page loadSaves $0.65/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.
3.66 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
4.73 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
3.18 s
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.010
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.71 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.
20.11 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
945 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.19 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
237 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.025
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
1.04 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.
3.65 s
Categories
8Performance
114 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Security
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Accessibility
2 button(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.
Technology stack
Astro 5.18.1, with Netlify CDN
Stack Architecture
DoubleClick Floodlight 
Google Analytics 
Google Tag Manager 
HubSpot HubSpot Analytics 
Astro 5.18.1
Goober Google Search Console HSTS NS1 
OneTrust 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
RSS 
Segment 1.81.0
reCAPTCHA 
Netlify Netlify CDN 
PartnerStack All Detected Technologies (19)
Netlify providers hosting and server-less backend services for web applications and static websites.
PartnerStack is a platform facilitating SaaS brand growth through streamlined partner management.
Astro is a new JavaScript-based static site builder.
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.
Priority Hints exposes a mechanism for developers to signal a relative priority for browsers to consider when fetching resources.
RSS is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format.
Segment is a customer data platform (CDP) that helps you collect, clean, and control your customer data.
reCAPTCHA is a free service from Google that helps protect websites from spam and abuse.
Google Analytics is a free web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
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.
HubSpot is a marketing and sales software that helps companies attract visitors, convert leads, and close customers.
HubSpot is a marketing and sales software that helps companies attract visitors, convert leads, and close customers.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Astro) 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
19 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/5b7e73d4-cfc8-4051-9249-2cafaea880c1)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/5b7e73d4-cfc8-4051-9249-2cafaea880c1"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnetlify.app" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnetlify.appExport & 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 · 8h total → projected B (83)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+2Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 2 button(s) with no accessible text
- · 114 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+7Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 3 control(s) without accessible label
- · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
- · No Content-Security-Policy header found