Skip to content
Recent Trends
Performance stable →
76
TTFB improving ↑
133ms
FCP improving ↑
1.1s
LCP improving ↑
7.0s
Scanned
2026-04-24 00:39 UTC
Worker
🇪🇸 Madrid
Duration
38.00s
Vs prev

Global Performance

6/6 locations

Acceptable global latency — average 380ms across 6 locations, fastest from Amsterdam (91ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (656ms). No CDN detected. 3 locations above the 500ms target.

Spain - Madrid
Full audit
204ms
DNS 54ms · TLS 42ms
Netherlands - Amsterdam
91ms
DNS 8ms · TLS 24ms
United Stated - New York
292ms
DNS 10ms · TLS 88ms
United States - Santa Clara
512ms
DNS 10ms · TLS 153ms
Singapore - Singapore
527ms
DNS 7ms · TLS 168ms
Brazil - Sao Paulo
656ms
DNS 11ms · TLS 211ms
CDN: No CDN · Avg TTFB: 380ms · Cache: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate

Audit overview

Accessibility and Sustainability need attention; the other categories are in good shape.

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

Top Priorities (5)

Sorted by impact
Critical: 1

Page weighs 5.8 MB (5.2 MB transferred)

Informational: total page weight (uncompressed) and bytes actually transferred over the wire.

Performance › Page Weight Budget
Critical: 2

2 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.

Accessibility › Link & Button Quality
Warning: 3

Images are 4.8 MB — compress or use modern formats

Image bandwidth is high — modern formats (WebP/AVIF) and resizing typically cut it 50%+.

Performance › Page Weight Budget
Warning: 4

No DMARC record found

Without DMARC, anyone can send phishing emails using your domain name.

Security › Email Security
Warning: 5

Page weight 4.2 MB over 1MB target

Performance issues directly impact user engagement and conversion rates.

Performance › Page Weight Inventory
What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. Your LCP of 3.4s exceeds Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold and the 3 performance issues below directly contribute to it. Addressing the critical issues below would have the most immediate impact on your conversion rate.
Your LCP is 3.4s — fixing the 3 performance criticals could bring it under Google's 2.5s 'Good' threshold.
1 accessibility issue excludes users who rely on assistive technology.
1 security gap detected — browsers may warn visitors about your site.

Business case

What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.

Return on investment

$500 investment → $5,587/month returns + USD 150,000 risk avoided

Investment
$500
5.0 h · 4 findings
Monthly returns
$5,587
$67,039/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+13308% Y1
Regulatory risk avoided USD 150,000
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
$3000.1 mo payback · +22246% 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.
$50 — 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

4 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~14%.

Barriers
4
4 warn
Bounce delta
+14pp
added vs baseline
Score
88
A
Speed
2
Trust
0
Usability
0
Content
1
Nav
1
  • Page loads in 3.4s
    Every additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 941ms over
    → Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
  • High main-thread blocking time
    Page is non-interactive for 408ms after first paint
    → Defer third-party scripts and split large bundles
  • No structured data
    No 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, …)
  • No skip-to-content link
    Keyboard and screen-reader users must tab through the entire header on every page
    → Add a visible-on-focus <a href="#main">Skip to content</a> as the first focusable element

Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.

Remediation cost

$500 5.0 developer hours at $100/hr
Quick wins
$50 1 fixes in ~30 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

$3,814 / month at risk ~$45,767 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Compliance Risk

$150,000

ADA Title III
  • 2 of 2 <nav> elements are unlabeled
    ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
  • Skip navigation link is missing (WCAG 2.4.1)
    ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000

Bounce-Rate Cost

$3,813 /mo

+14.2pp bounce · ~1,417 lost visitors/mo

CPC: USD 2.69

Bandwidth Waste

$1.30 /mo

16209.3 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~1.6 MB per page load
    Saves $1.30/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 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

Bounce-rate model & assumptions

Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers

Lighthouse

Mobile

79
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
89
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.
92
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.

986 ms

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

3.44 s

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

408 ms

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

0.023

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

4.40 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.

11.31 s

Desktop

83
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
95
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.
92
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.

468 ms

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

3.02 s

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

0 ms

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

0.024

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

640 ms

Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.

3.02 s

Categories

8
Avg score 82.1

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

HSTS · 2556 peers
You 83
·
Avg 75
+8 above average
0 50 100
Compliance P98Security P95SEO P88Infrastructure P23Sustainability P23Content P65Performance P64Accessibility P51

Top 10% of HSTS sites score 95+ on Infrastructure; you're at 85 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 90% of HSTS sites See full HSTS benchmark →
HTTP/3 · 1498 peers
You 83
·
Avg 75
+8 above average
0 50 100
Compliance P99Security P98SEO P89Sustainability P12Infrastructure P17Content P65Performance P55Accessibility P53

Top 10% of HTTP/3 sites score 96+ on Sustainability; you're at 66 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 91% of HTTP/3 sites See full HTTP/3 benchmark →

Technology stack

HSTS, on Elixir

9 technologies detected 2 stack layers 1 with CPE identifier Enterprise

Stack Architecture

Framework
HSTS HTTP/3 Lucide Open Graph Phoenix Framework Phoenix LiveView Tailwind CSS
Runtime
Elixir Erlang

All Detected Technologies (9)

Elixir is a dynamic, functional language designed for building scalable and maintainable applications.

Categories Programming languages Website https://elixir-lang.org Detected by BeaverCheck

Erlang is a general-purpose, concurrent, functional programming language, and a garbage-collected runtime system.

Categories Programming languages Website https://www.erlang.org Detected by BeaverCheck
This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.

Categories Security Website https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797#section-6.1 Detected by BeaverCheck

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

Lucide is an open-source icon library that provides 1000+ vector (svg) files for displaying icons and symbols in digital and non-digital projects.

Categories Font scripts Website https://lucide.dev Detected by BeaverCheck

Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.

Categories Miscellaneous Website https://ogp.me Detected by BeaverCheck

Phoenix Framework is an open-source web application framework built using the Elixir programming language.

Categories Web frameworks Website https://www.phoenixframework.org Detected by BeaverCheck

Phoenix LiveView is a library that brings live, interactive, real-time user experiences to your Phoenix applications.

Categories Web frameworks Website https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix_live_view/Phoenix.LiveView.html Detected by BeaverCheck
Categories Framework Website https://tailwindcss.com Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Found 170 unique Tailwind utility classes in HTML

Observations (2)

No build tool detected

A framework (HSTS) 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

9 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.

BeaverCheck badge

This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.

[![BeaverCheck](https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstelgano.com)](https://beavercheck.com/results/936f5591-46ec-43a4-a5cd-e12fe33cac1b)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/936f5591-46ec-43a4-a5cd-e12fe33cac1b"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstelgano.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstelgano.com

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 · 5h total → projected B (89)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+4

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

2 findings 0h → B (87)
  • · Page weighs 5.8 MB (5.2 MB transferred)
  • · 2 button(s) with no accessible text

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+2

Medium effort, high structural impact

3 findings 4h → B (89)
  • · No DMARC record found
  • · Images are 4.8 MB — compress or use modern formats
  • · Page weight 4.2 MB over 1MB target

Send Feedback