Audit overview
Accessibility and Content need attention; the other categories are in good shape.
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.
'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.
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.
Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Soft 404s (HTTP 200 for missing pages) confuse Google — it indexes the 'not found' page as real content and ranks it.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$1,292 investment → $3,813/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 ~14%.
- 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
- No Open Graph tagsLinks shared on LinkedIn / Slack / Facebook show bare URLs — referral clicks drop→ Add og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url to the page head
- 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, …)
- Thin contentUnder 300 words — visitors bounce looking for substance, search engines rank competitors first→ Add a substantive FAQ, product detail, or case-study section
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
- Privacy Policy not detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- No <main> landmark foundADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
$3,813 /mo
+14.2pp bounce · ~1,417 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.02 /mo
249.8 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~25 KB per page loadSaves $0.02/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.
1.67 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.85 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.
0.000
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
1.67 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.
1.85 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
568 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
568 ms
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.
0.000
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
568 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.
568 ms
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Accessibility
No <main> landmark found
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 Google Font API sites score 96+ on SEO; you're at 70 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Google Domains
Stack Architecture
Google Font API 
HTTP/3 All Detected Technologies (3)
Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
Observations (1)
No build tool detected
A framework (Google Domains) 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.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/results/72460f12-0673-45aa-aaf8-84c0857bdb8b)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/72460f12-0673-45aa-aaf8-84c0857bdb8b"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fshare.google" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fshare.googleExport & 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 · 13h total → projected B (85)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+6Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · HSTS header is missing
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+3Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source