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.
HSTS header is missing
Without HSTS, a network attacker can downgrade the very first connection to HTTP and steal the user's session.
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.
2 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€1,169 investment → €11,744/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
9 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~31%.
- Page takes 9.5s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 7.0s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 2.4sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 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
- 2 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
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
- 3 of 3 <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
- Heading level skipped: H1 → H4 (missing H2)EAA: EUR 1.000 – EUR 500.000
Bounce-Rate Cost
€6.769 /mo
+30.8pp bounce · ~3,077 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€0,48 /mo
6516.6 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~652 KB per page loadSaves €0,48/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 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
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.
2.66 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
9.50 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
2.42 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.
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.
12.83 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.09 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.21 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
275 ms
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.
1.62 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.
2.95 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
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.
Top 10% of WordPress sites score 75+ on Accessibility; you're at 58 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
WordPress, hosted on Snowplow Analytics
Stack Architecture
DoubleClick Floodlight 
Google Tag Manager 
WordPress 
Admiral 
Alpine.js 3.15.10Amazon Route 53 
Boomerang Facebook Google Search Console Google Workspace 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
jQuery 3.7.1
web-vitals 
Snowplow Analytics All Detected Technologies (15)
Snowplow is an open-source behavioral data management platform for businesses.
Admiral is a Visitor Relationship Management (VRM) platform.
Alpine.js is a minimal framework for composing behavior directly in your markup.
boomerang is a JavaScript library that measures the page load time experienced by real users, commonly called RUM (Real User Measurement).
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.
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.
The web-vitals JavaScript is a tiny, modular library for measuring all the web vitals metrics on real users.
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)
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.
No build tool detected
A framework (Admiral) 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
15 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/6b64cf47-19df-4110-993d-7cc83480e112)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/6b64cf47-19df-4110-993d-7cc83480e112"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.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 · 14h total → projected B (86)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+4Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · HSTS header is missing
- · 2 button(s) with no accessible text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+2Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 2 control(s) without accessible label
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+3Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source