Audit overview
3 categories need attention: Accessibility, and 2 others.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
4High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
1High 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)
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.
47 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Informational: third-party resource count and their share of page weight. High share caps perf gains from frontend optimization.
Cookie 'ARRAffinity' has no SameSite attribute
Without SameSite, cookies ride along on cross-site requests — enabling CSRF attacks that SameSite=Lax blocks for free.
Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing
COEP enforces that all embedded resources opt-in to cross-origin embedding — required for cross-origin isolation features.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$192 investment → $10,243/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
9 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~38%.
- Page takes 15.8s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 13.3s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 998msClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- No viewport meta tagMobile browsers render at desktop width and shrink — text unreadable, tap targets miniature→ Add <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
- 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
$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
$10,242 /mo
+38.1pp bounce · ~3,807 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.58 /mo
7249.5 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~725 KB per page loadSaves $0.58/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 2 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.
5.41 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
15.77 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
998 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.
5.41 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.
15.77 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.74 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
3.49 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
90 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.
1.74 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.
3.49 s
Categories
8Performance
47 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Security
Cookie 'ARRAffinity' has no SameSite attribute
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.
Technology stack
Angular, on TypeScript, hosted on Azure
Stack Architecture
Microsoft Application Insights 
Angular Azure DNS HSTS 
Lodash 4.17.21
Moment.js 2.29.4
RequireJS 2.3.2 Zone.js 
core-js 3.36.1
jQuery 3.5.1
TypeScript 
Azure All Detected Technologies (12)
Azure is a cloud computing service for building, testing, deploying, and managing applications and services through Microsoft-managed data centers.
TypeScript is an open-source language which builds on JavaScript by adding static type definitions.
Angular is a TypeScript-based open-source web application framework led by the Angular Team at Google.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
Lodash is a JavaScript library which provides utility functions for common programming tasks using the functional programming paradigm.
Moment.js is a free and open-source JavaScript library that removes the need to use the native JavaScript Date object directly.
RequireJS is a JavaScript library and file loader which manages the dependencies between JavaScript files and in modular programming.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
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.
Microsoft Application Insights is a feature of Azure Monitor that provides extensible application performance management (APM) and monitoring for live web apps.
Observations (3)
jQuery loaded alongside a modern framework
Both jQuery and Angular are loaded. Modern frameworks handle DOM manipulation natively. jQuery may be unnecessary and adds ~30KB to the page weight. Check the Performance tab for bundle analysis.
No build tool detected
A framework (Angular) 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
12 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/sites/powerbi.com)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/powerbi.com"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpowerbi.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpowerbi.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
2 sprints · 2h total → projected C (78)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+5Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
- · 47 third-party resources (100% of weight)
- · Cookie 'ARRAffinity' has no SameSite attribute
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing