Audit overview
Accessibility 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
Top Priorities (5)
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
'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 button(s) with no accessible text
Buttons with no accessible text (icon-only, no aria-label) can't be activated by voice control or understood by screen readers.
2 link(s) with no accessible text
Links with no accessible text (empty <a></a>, image-only no alt, icon-only no aria-label) are unidentifiable to screen readers.
5 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€1,190 investment → €9,580/month returns + EUR 120,500,000 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
6 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~27%.
- Page takes 5.8s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 3.3s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- 5 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
- High main-thread blocking timePage is non-interactive for 413ms 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
- 14 link(s) with generic text ("click here", "read more")Screen-reader users navigating by link list see no context — and search engines can't infer relevance→ Rewrite with descriptive phrases that identify the destination
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
€120.500.000
- No privacy policy link detectedGDPR: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundGDPR: EUR 5.000 – EUR 10.000.000
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundGDPR: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000
Bounce-Rate Cost
€6.002 /mo
+27.3pp bounce · ~2,728 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€0,41 /mo
5538.2 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~554 KB per page loadSaves €0,41/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 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
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.
4.10 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
5.81 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
413 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.005
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
4.10 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.
11.32 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.52 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
3.42 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
121 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.001
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
2.02 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.
3.51 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Accessibility
1 button(s) with no accessible 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 Amazon Route 53 sites score 93+ on Infrastructure; you're at 85 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of core-js sites score 96+ on SEO; you're at 89 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Amazon Route 53, hosted on AWS, with AWS CloudFront CDN
Stack Architecture
Google Tag Manager 
PayPal 
Glide.js Google Search Console HSTS Microsoft 365 Mimecast OneTrust 
Open Graph 
Webpack 
core-js 2.6.12
AWS CloudFront Amazon CloudFront 
AWS Amazon Web Services All Detected Technologies (16)
Amazon CloudFront is a fast content delivery network (CDN) service that securely delivers data, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally with low latency, high transfer speeds.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a comprehensive cloud services platform offering compute power, database storage, content delivery and other functionality.
Glide.js is a dependency-free JavaScript ES6 slider and carousel.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
Webpack is an open-source JavaScript module bundler.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
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.
PayPal is an online payments system that supports online money transfers and serves as an electronic alternative to traditional paper methods like checks and money orders.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Amazon Route 53) 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
16 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/8ab81817-0980-4118-8bed-c0f79018dcd7)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/8ab81817-0980-4118-8bed-c0f79018dcd7"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatista.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatista.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 · 14h total → projected B (87)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+3Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 1 button(s) with no accessible text
- · 2 link(s) with no accessible text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 5 control(s) without accessible label
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+5Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source