Skip to content
RU · RUB (₽) · Estimated Dev cost: ₽3,500/hr How jurisdiction is detected
Scanned
2026-04-22 23:46 UTC
Worker
🇪🇸 Madrid
Duration
32.00s
Vs prev

Audit overview

3 categories need attention: Security, and 2 others.

Fix Priority Matrix

5 findings

Quick Wins

2

High impact, low effort — start here.

Strategic

3

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

2 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.

Accessibility › Alt Text Quality
Critical: 5

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.

Accessibility › Landmark Structure
What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. 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.
2 accessibility issues exclude users who rely on assistive technology.

Business case

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

Return on investment

₽27,708 investment → ₽276,901/month returns

Investment
₽27 708
7.9 h · 5 findings
Monthly returns
₽276 901
₽3 322 810/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+11892% Y1
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
₽21 8750.1 mo payback · +15090% 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.
₽1 458 — 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

9 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~31%.

Barriers
9
1 crit 8 warn
Bounce delta
+31pp
added vs baseline
Score
66
C
Speed
1
Trust
2
Usability
1
Content
3
Nav
2
  • Page takes 5.6s to load
    Users abandon at ~3s — you're 3.1s over the 2.5s threshold
    → Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
  • 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
  • Layout shifts during page load
    Content movement causes mis-clicks on CTAs and form fields
    → Add width/height to images; reserve space for late-loading embeds
  • No Open Graph tags
    Links shared on LinkedIn / Slack / Facebook show bare URLs — referral clicks drop
    → Add og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url to the page head

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

Remediation cost

₽27,708 7.9 developer hours at ₽3500/hr
Quick wins
₽1,458 2 fixes in ~25 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

₽183 344 / month at risk ~₽2 200 127 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Bounce-Rate Cost

₽183 331 /mo

+30.6pp bounce · ~3,056 lost visitors/mo

CPC: RUB 60.00

Bandwidth Waste

₽13 /mo

1734.6 MB/mo × 7.273 RUB/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~173 KB per page load
    Saves ₽13/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 5 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

62
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
74
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.
83
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.

2.98 s

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

5.57 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.

0.228

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

3.14 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.

5.57 s

Desktop

98
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
74
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.
83
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.

790 ms

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

1.00 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.

0.033

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

790 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.

1.00 s

Categories

8
Avg score 76.1

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

Google Font API · 1040 peers
You 75
·
Avg 73
At average
0 50 100
Performance P99Security P3SEO P5Content P8Sustainability P88Compliance P24Infrastructure P27Accessibility P31

Top 10% of Google Font API sites score 76+ on Security; you're at 58 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 60% of Google Font API sites See full Google Font API benchmark →
Tailwind CSS · 1345 peers
You 75
·
Avg 75
At average
0 50 100
Performance P99Security P2Content P5SEO P8Sustainability P83Accessibility P24Infrastructure P25Compliance P26

Top 10% of Tailwind CSS sites score 81+ on Security; you're at 58 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 49% of Tailwind CSS sites See full Tailwind CSS benchmark →

Technology stack

Google Font API, with Nginx CDN

3 technologies detected 2 stack layers 1 with CPE identifier Standard

Stack Architecture

Framework
Google Font API Tailwind CSS
CDN
Nginx 1.13.12

All Detected Technologies (3)

Nginx is a web server that can also be used as a reverse proxy, load balancer, mail proxy and HTTP cache.

Categories Web servers, Reverse proxies Website https://nginx.org/en Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header: nginx/1.13.12
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.

Categories Font scripts Website https://fonts.google.com/ Detected by BeaverCheck
Categories Framework Website https://tailwindcss.com Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence Found 8 unique Tailwind utility classes in HTML

Observations (1)

No build tool detected

A framework (Google Font API) 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%2Fbget.ru)](https://beavercheck.com/results/685c6ff7-1a80-4c99-8999-ed5d4b092def)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/685c6ff7-1a80-4c99-8999-ed5d4b092def"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbget.ru" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbget.ru

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 · 8h total → projected B (84)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+4

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

2 findings 0h → C (79)
  • · No <main> landmark found
  • · HSTS header is missing

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+5

Medium effort, high structural impact

3 findings 8h → B (84)
  • · 2 image(s) missing alt attribute
  • · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
  • · No Content-Security-Policy header found

Send Feedback