Global Performance
6/6 locations ✓Strong global performance — average 196ms across 6 locations, fastest from Santa Clara (108ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (273ms). Cloudflare edge cache (DYNAMIC). Cache-Control disables caching (no-store).
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.
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.
382 third-party resources (99% of weight)
Informational: third-party resource count and their share of page weight. High share caps perf gains from frontend optimization.
385 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
€907 investment → €6,186/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
8 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~28%.
- Page feels frozen for 1.6sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 6 broken link(s) on the pageClicks land on 404s — trust drops and the session often ends→ Fix or remove the broken destinations surfaced on the Content tab
- Page loads in 2.6sEvery additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 83ms over→ Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
- 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
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
- 6 non-essential cookie(s) set without consent bannerGDPR: EUR 5.000 – EUR 10.000.000
- 6 non-essential cookie(s) set without consent bannerGDPR: EUR 10.000 – EUR 20.000.000
- 6 non-essential cookie(s) set without consent bannerePrivacy Directive: EUR 5.000 – EUR 100.000.000
Bounce-Rate Cost
€6.057 /mo
+27.5pp bounce · ~2,753 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€0,40 /mo
5427.9 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~543 KB per page loadSaves €0,40/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.
2.05 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.58 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
1.62 s
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.
3.82 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.
12.21 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
768 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
937 ms
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
258 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.
1.43 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.
2.58 s
Categories
8Performance
382 third-party resources (99% of weight)
Security
'unsafe-inline' found in script source
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.
Top 10% of Apple sites score 94+ on Infrastructure; you're at 82 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Apple, on Envoy, with Cloudflare CDN
Stack Architecture
Plaid 
Arkose Labs 
Cloudflare Bot Management Google Play app Google Search Console Google Workspace HSTS Native app preferred 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
Sentry 
Tailwind CSS 
shadcn/ui 
Envoy Cloudflare All Detected Technologies (16)
Cloudflare is a web-infrastructure and website-security company, providing content-delivery-network services, DDoS mitigation, Internet security, and distributed domain-name-server services.
Arkose Labs is a toolkit for fraud prevention that provides solutions to detect and mitigate malicious activity across digital platforms.
Cloudflare bot management solution identifies and mitigates automated traffic to protect websites from bad bots.
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.
Sentry is an open-source platform for workflow productivity, aggregating errors from across the stack in real time.
Tailwind is a utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom user interfaces.
shadcn/ui is a component system built with Radix UI and Tailwind CSS.
Plaid is a fintech company that facilitates communication between financial services apps and users' banks and credit card providers.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Apple) 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/sites/x.com)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/x.com"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.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 · 11h total → projected A (91)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+3Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
- · 382 third-party resources (99% of weight)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 385 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+3Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source