Skip to content
CL · CLP (CL$) · Estimated Applicable regulations: Ley 19.628 Dev cost: CL$ 40,000/hr How jurisdiction is detected
Scanned
2026-05-10 13:31 UTC
Worker
🇪🇸 Madrid
Duration
1.1m
Vs prev

Global Performance

6/6 locations

High global latency — average 777ms across 6 locations, fastest from Sao Paulo (239ms), slowest from Singapore (1771ms). Cloudflare edge cache (DYNAMIC). Cache-Control header is missing. 3 locations above the 500ms target.

Spain - Madrid
Full audit
889ms
DNS 238ms · TLS 26ms
Singapore - Singapore
1771ms
DNS 696ms · TLS 10ms
United States - Santa Clara
476ms
DNS 28ms · TLS 15ms
United Stated - New York
483ms
DNS 109ms · TLS 9ms
Brazil - Sao Paulo
239ms
DNS 56ms · TLS 9ms
Netherlands - Amsterdam
804ms
DNS 197ms · TLS 11ms
CDN: Cloudflare (DYNAMIC) · Avg TTFB: 777ms · Cache: No cache headers

Audit overview

Compliance needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.

Fix Priority Matrix

5 findings

Quick Wins

3

High impact, low effort — start here.

Strategic

2

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

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: 3

Page body has only 57 chars of text -- likely empty / placeholder

Security gaps expose your site and users to attacks, eroding trust.

Security › Empty Page Detection
Critical: 4

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
Critical: 5

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.

Accessibility › 404 Error Page
What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. 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

CLP 286,667 investment → CLP 7,543,617/month returns + CLP 50,000,000 risk avoided

Investment
CLP 286,667
7.2 h · 5 findings
Monthly returns
CLP 7,543,617
CLP 90,523,402/yr
Payback
0.0 mo
+31478% Y1
Regulatory risk avoided CLP 50,000,000
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
CLP 260,0000.0 mo payback · +34717% 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.
CLP 46,667 — 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

8 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~30%.

Barriers
8
2 crit 6 warn
Bounce delta
+30pp
added vs baseline
Score
62
C
Speed
2
Trust
2
Usability
0
Content
3
Nav
1
  • Page takes 7.4s to load
    Users abandon at ~3s — you're 4.9s over the 2.5s threshold
    → Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
  • Page feels frozen for 626ms
    Clicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs
    → Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
  • 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
  • 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

CL$286,667 7.2 developer hours at CL$40000/hr
Quick wins
CL$46,667 3 fixes in ~70 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.

CL$ /hr

Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead

How developer rates are sourced

Cost of inaction

CLP 8,618,306 / month at risk ~CLP 103,419,668 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Compliance Risk

CLP 50,000,000

Ley 19.628
  • No privacy policy link detected
    Ley 19.628: CLP 1,000,000 – CLP 50,000,000
  • Privacy Policy not detected
    Ley 19.628: CLP 1,000,000 – CLP 50,000,000

Bounce-Rate Cost

CLP 4,450,728 /mo

+29.7pp bounce · ~2,967 lost visitors/mo

CPC: CLP 1500.00

Bandwidth Waste

CLP 911 /mo

11962.7 MB/mo × 76.190 CLP/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~1.2 MB per page load
    Saves CLP 911/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

42
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
89
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
96
Best Practices Checks for modern web development best practices including HTTPS, no console errors, and secure JavaScript.
92
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.

6.60 s

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

7.36 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

626 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.

8.32 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.

8.03 s

Desktop

75
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
89
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
96
Best Practices Checks for modern web development best practices including HTTPS, no console errors, and secure JavaScript.
92
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.

1.14 s

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

3.76 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

123 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.

1.33 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.

3.77 s

Categories

8
Avg score 76.6

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

Bulma · 357 peers
You 78
·
Avg 74
At average
0 50 100
Compliance P1SEO P2Accessibility P96Security P91Infrastructure P15Content P16Performance P83Sustainability P62

Top 10% of Bulma sites score 86+ on Compliance; you're at 63 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 81% of Bulma sites See full Bulma benchmark →
Font Awesome · 548 peers
You 78
·
Avg 73
At average
0 50 100
Compliance P1Accessibility P96SEO P6Security P89Infrastructure P18Performance P80Content P30Sustainability P57

Top 10% of Font Awesome sites score 85+ on Compliance; you're at 63 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 86% of Font Awesome sites See full Font Awesome benchmark →

Technology stack

Bulma, with Cloudflare CDN

9 technologies detected 2 stack layers 3 with CPE identifier Enterprise

Stack Architecture

Framework
Bulma Font Awesome HSTS Lodash 1.8.3 React React Router 6 Tailwind CSS
CDN
Cloudflare cdnjs

All Detected Technologies (9)

Cloudflare is a web-infrastructure and website-security company, providing content-delivery-network services, DDoS mitigation, Internet security, and distributed domain-name-server services.

Categories CDN Website https://www.cloudflare.com Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header in redirect: cloudflare
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →
Categories CDN Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence Script URL contains cdnjs.cloudflare.com: https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js
Categories Framework Website https://bulma.io Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Found 8 Bulma class patterns in HTML

Font Awesome is a font and icon toolkit based on CSS and Less.

Categories Font scripts Website https://fontawesome.com/ Detected by BeaverCheck

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.

Categories Security Website https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797#section-6.1 Detected by BeaverCheck

Lodash is a JavaScript library which provides utility functions for common programming tasks using the functional programming paradigm.

Categories JavaScript libraries Website https://www.lodash.com Detected by BeaverCheck
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

React is an open-source JavaScript library for building user interfaces or UI components.

Categories JavaScript frameworks Website https://reactjs.org Detected by BeaverCheck
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

React Router provides declarative routing for React.

Categories JavaScript frameworks Website https://reactrouter.com Detected by BeaverCheck
Categories Framework Website https://tailwindcss.com Detected by BeaverCheck · Medium Evidence Found 5 unique Tailwind utility classes in HTML

Observations (2)

No build tool detected

A framework (Bulma) 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

9 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.

BeaverCheck badge

This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.

[![BeaverCheck](https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2FPsifos-participa.uchile.cl%2Fpsifos)](https://beavercheck.com/results/7b4a35b0-47e9-4fc5-adb1-10c6f37ed471)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/7b4a35b0-47e9-4fc5-adb1-10c6f37ed471"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2FPsifos-participa.uchile.cl%2Fpsifos" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2FPsifos-participa.uchile.cl%2Fpsifos

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 · 7h total → projected B (87)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+5

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

3 findings 1h → B (83)
  • · No <main> landmark found
  • · Page body has only 57 chars of text -- likely empty / placeholder
  • · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+4

Medium effort, high structural impact

2 findings 6h → B (87)
  • · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
  • · No Content-Security-Policy header found

Send Feedback