Global Performance
6/6 locations ✓Acceptable global latency — average 348ms across 6 locations, fastest from Amsterdam (79ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (628ms). No CDN detected. 1 location above the 500ms target.
Audit overview
All categories sit comfortably above the 70 threshold; this is a clean audit.
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-inline' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
1 image-only link(s) without alt text
Image-only links with no alt are unidentifiable to screen-reader users — link's destination is invisible.
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.
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.
External link from fonts.googleapis.com lacks integrity attribute
External resource without SRI — if the third-party CDN is compromised, your site executes attacker-controlled code.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$817 investment → $8,791/month returns + USD 150,000 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
7 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~23%.
- Page loads in 3.9sEvery additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 1.4s over→ Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
- High main-thread blocking timePage is non-interactive for 304ms after first paint→ Defer third-party scripts and split large bundles
- 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
- Layout shifts during page loadContent movement causes mis-clicks on CTAs and form fields→ Add width/height to images; reserve space for late-loading embeds
- Viewport disables user zoomVisitors with low vision can't read the page — and some jurisdictions treat this as a legal risk→ Remove user-scalable=no; drop maximum-scale if it's below 2
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
$150,000
- No <main> landmark foundADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
- 1 image-only link(s) without alt textADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
$6,150 /mo
+22.9pp bounce · ~2,286 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.15 /mo
1877.0 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~188 KB per page loadSaves $0.15/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 3 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.
3.60 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
3.90 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
304 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.135
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
3.60 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.
5.53 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.20 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.32 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
2 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.030
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
1.20 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.
1.44 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
'unsafe-inline' found in script source
Accessibility
1 image-only link(s) without alt text
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 95+ on Content; you're at 83 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of HSTS sites score 95+ on Infrastructure; you're at 88 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Google Font API, on Elixir
Stack Architecture
Google Analytics 
Google Tag Manager 
Google Font API HSTS 
HTTP/3 
Open Graph 
Phoenix Framework Phoenix LiveView 
Elixir 
Erlang All Detected Technologies (10)
Elixir is a dynamic, functional language designed for building scalable and maintainable applications.
Erlang is a general-purpose, concurrent, functional programming language, and a garbage-collected runtime system.
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.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
Phoenix Framework is an open-source web application framework built using the Elixir programming language.
Phoenix LiveView is a library that brings live, interactive, real-time user experiences to your Phoenix applications.
Google Analytics is a free web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system (TMS) that allows you to quickly and easily update measurement codes and related code fragments collectively known as tags on your website or mobile app.
Observations (2)
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.
Complex technology stack detected
10 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/results/87083c24-c1ae-4e86-8fd0-94cceeb336b2)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/87083c24-c1ae-4e86-8fd0-94cceeb336b2"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoidlogue.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoidlogue.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
3 sprints · 8h total → projected A (90)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+4Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · 1 image-only link(s) without alt text
- · External link from fonts.googleapis.com lacks integrity attribute
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+2Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source