Skip to content
Scanned
2026-08-20 17:11 UTC
Worker
🇪🇸 Madrid
Duration
50.00s
Vs prev

Global Performance

6/6 locations

Excellent global latency — average 85ms across 6 locations, fastest from Singapore (15ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (170ms). No CDN detected.

Spain - Madrid
Full audit
101ms
DNS 31ms · TLS 25ms
United Stated - New York
57ms
DNS 17ms · TLS 17ms
United States - Santa Clara
139ms
DNS 78ms · TLS 21ms
Netherlands - Amsterdam
27ms
DNS 10ms · TLS 9ms
Singapore - Singapore
15ms
DNS 3ms · TLS 6ms
Brazil - Sao Paulo
170ms
DNS 56ms · TLS 55ms
CDN: No CDN · Avg TTFB: 85ms · Cache: max-age=1800

Audit overview

All categories sit comfortably above the 70 threshold; this is a clean audit.

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

Your mail setup has problems.

ai.studio fails 2 mail checks: DMARC policy is none — monitoring only, SPF ends in ?all — provides no enforcement. This is the kind of misconfiguration that sends your mail to spam.

Get a full deliverability audit — €179, 48h →

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

1 control(s) without accessible label

Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.

Accessibility › Form Accessibility
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. 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

$742 investment → $12,086/month returns + USD 157,500 risk avoided

Investment
$742
7.4 h · 5 findings
Monthly returns
$12,086
$145,035/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+19455% Y1
Regulatory risk avoided USD 157,500
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
$6250.1 mo payback · +23106% 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.
$42 — 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

10 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~32%.

Barriers
10
2 crit 8 warn
Bounce delta
+32pp
added vs baseline
Score
56
C
Speed
2
Trust
2
Usability
1
Content
3
Nav
2
  • Page takes 4.6s to load
    Users abandon at ~3s — you're 2.1s over the 2.5s threshold
    → Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
  • Page feels frozen for 1.2s
    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
  • 1 form field(s) without a label
    Screen 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

$742 7.4 developer hours at $100/hr
Quick wins
$42 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

$8,611 / month at risk ~$103,332 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Compliance Risk

$157,500

ADA Title IIICCPA/CPRA
  • Privacy Policy not detected
    CCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
  • No <main> landmark found
    ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
  • No <nav> landmark found
    ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000

Bounce-Rate Cost

$8,611 /mo

+32.0pp bounce · ~3,201 lost visitors/mo

CPC: USD 2.69

Bandwidth Waste

$0.20 /mo

2463.5 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~246 KB per page load
    Saves $0.20/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

52
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
100
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.
91
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.

3.40 s

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

4.61 s

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

1.20 s

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.

3.42 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.

8.51 s

Desktop

94
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
100
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.
91
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.

966 ms

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

1.45 s

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

74 ms

Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.

0.008

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

1.11 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.

1.98 s

Categories

8
Avg score 80.8

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

Google Domains · 230 peers
You 82
·
Avg 75
+7 above average
0 50 100
Better than 96% of Google Domains sites See full Google Domains benchmark →
HTTP/3 · 1827 peers
You 82
·
Avg 77
At average
0 50 100
Security P85Compliance P22Accessibility P73Content P34Performance P66SEO P35Sustainability P47Infrastructure P48

Top 10% of HTTP/3 sites score 87+ on Compliance; you're at 71 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 77% of HTTP/3 sites See full HTTP/3 benchmark →

Technology stack

Google Domains

2 technologies detected 1 stack layers Minimal

Stack Architecture

Framework
Google Domains HTTP/3

All Detected Technologies (2)

Categories DNS Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence NS record: ns2.googledomains.com

HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.

Categories Miscellaneous Website https://httpwg.org/ Detected by BeaverCheck

Observations (2)

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.

Minimal technology footprint

Only 2 technologies detected. This suggests a simple setup with minimal dependencies — excellent for performance and security.

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%2Fai.studio%2Fapps%2F8a1aa443-e343-43b1-9244-fca856afe044)](https://beavercheck.com/sites/ai.studio)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/ai.studio"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fai.studio%2Fapps%2F8a1aa443-e343-43b1-9244-fca856afe044" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fai.studio%2Fapps%2F8a1aa443-e343-43b1-9244-fca856afe044

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 (89)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+4

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

2 findings 0h → B (86)
  • · No <main> landmark found
  • · HSTS header is missing

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+3

Medium effort, high structural impact

3 findings 7h → B (89)
  • · 1 control(s) without accessible label
  • · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
  • · No Content-Security-Policy header found

Send Feedback