Audit overview
Compliance 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
Your mail setup has problems.
verticesoluciones.com.ar fails 1 mail check: No DMARC record found. This is the kind of misconfiguration that sends your mail to spam.
Top Priorities (5)
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.
4 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
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.
No favicon or icon links detected
Without a favicon, your tab shows a blank icon and bookmarks look unbranded — amateur signal in every browser surface.
50 inline style attribute(s) detected
Inline style attributes force `style-src 'unsafe-inline'` in any CSP -- effectively negating CSP's XSS-mitigation value for stylesheets.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
ARS 346,667 investment → ARS 2,257,158/month returns + ARS 5,000,000 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%.
- Severe layout shift during page loadUsers mis-click when content jumps — converting intent into frustration→ Reserve space for images, ads, and embeds with explicit width/height
- 4 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
- Page loads in 2.7sEvery additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 241ms over→ Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
- 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
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
ARS 5,000,000
- No privacy policy found (page links and common paths checked)Ley 25.326: ARS 1,000 – ARS 5,000,000
- Privacy Policy not detectedLey 25.326: ARS 1,000 – ARS 5,000,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
ARS 2,138,866 /mo
+30.6pp bounce · ~3,056 lost visitors/mo
CPC: ARS 700.00
Bandwidth Waste
ARS 39 /mo
541.4 MB/mo × 72.727 ARS/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~54 KB per page loadSaves ARS 39/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.
2.74 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.74 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.
0.271
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
2.93 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.
2.74 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
702 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
977 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.
0.073
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
702 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.
977 ms
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Accessibility
4 control(s) without accessible label
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 85+ on Compliance; you're at 65 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of HSTS sites score 87+ on Compliance; you're at 65 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Google Font API, with Netlify CDN
Stack Architecture
Google Font API HSTS NS1 Zoho Mail 
Netlify Netlify CDN All Detected Technologies (6)
Netlify providers hosting and server-less backend services for web applications and static websites.
Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
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.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/sites/verticesoluciones.com.ar)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/verticesoluciones.com.ar"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fverticesoluciones.com.ar" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fverticesoluciones.com.arExport & 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 · 9h total → projected A (90)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+3Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · No favicon or icon links detected
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+4Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 4 control(s) without accessible label
- · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
- · 50 inline style attribute(s) detected