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
Your mail setup has problems.
garbau-git-preview-garbau.vercel.app fails 2 mail checks: No DMARC record found, No SPF record found. This is the kind of misconfiguration that sends your mail to spam.
Top Priorities (5)
10 publicly-accessible JavaScript source map(s)
Source maps reveal original source code (variable names, comments, file structure) and are shipped to production by mistake almost universally. The standard fix is a one-line build-tool config change.
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.
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.
130 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.
131 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing
High HTTP request count — bundling, sprite-ing, and HTTP/2 server push can reduce per-request overhead.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$800 investment → $12,955/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 ~31%.
- Page takes 10.3s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 7.8s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 964msClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 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
- 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
- No structured dataNo rich-result eligibility in Google — lower SERP CTR vs competitors with stars and prices→ Add JSON-LD for your page type (Product, Article, FAQPage, LocalBusiness, …)
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
- 2 of 2 <nav> elements are unlabeledADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
$8,219 /mo
+30.6pp bounce · ~3,056 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.52 /mo
6465.1 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~647 KB per page loadSaves $0.52/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.
3.67 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
10.34 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
964 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.
6.03 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.
13.02 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
967 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.03 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
1 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.
1.82 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.
2.03 s
Categories
8Performance
130 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Security
10 publicly-accessible JavaScript source map(s)
Accessibility
Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
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
Contentful, on Turbopack, hosted on Next.js, with Vercel Edge CDN
Stack Architecture
Sift 
Vercel Analytics Vercel Speed Insights 2.0.0-canary.1
Contentful 
Framer Motion HSTS 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
Prism 
React 
Sentry 
Tailwind CSS 
Webpack 
Turbopack Vercel Edge 
Next.js 16.5.0-canary.25 Next.js App Router Vercel All Detected Technologies (18)
Next.js is a React framework for developing single page Javascript applications.
The Next.js App Router is a new paradigm for building applications using React's latest features.
Vercel is a cloud platform for static frontends and serverless functions.
Turbopack is an incremental bundler for JavaScript and TypeScript, written in Rust and integrated into the Next.js framework for optimized build performance.
Contentful is an API-first content management platform to create, manage and publish content on any digital channel.
Framer Motion is a modern animation library for JavaScript, React, and Vue.
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.
Priority Hints exposes a mechanism for developers to signal a relative priority for browsers to consider when fetching resources.
Prism is an extensible syntax highlighter.
React is an open-source JavaScript library for building user interfaces or UI components.
Sentry is an open-source platform for workflow productivity, aggregating errors from across the stack in real time.
Webpack is an open-source JavaScript module bundler.
Sift is a CA-based fraud prevention company.
Vercel Speed Insights provides you with a detailed view of your website's performance metrics, based on Core Web Vitals.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Framer Motion) 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
18 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/garbau-git-preview-garbau.vercel.app)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/garbau-git-preview-garbau.vercel.app"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgarbau-git-preview-garbau.vercel.app" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgarbau-git-preview-garbau.vercel.appExport & 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 · 8h total → projected B (88)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+5Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 10 publicly-accessible JavaScript source map(s)
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
- · 130 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+3Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
- · 131 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing