Audit overview
Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
4High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
1High 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)
Page weighs 6.9 MB (4.3 MB transferred)
Informational: total page weight (uncompressed) and bytes actually transferred over the wire.
18 image-only link(s) without alt text
Image-only links with no alt are unidentifiable to screen-reader users — link's destination is invisible.
2 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
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.
3 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.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€213 investment → €11,788/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
7 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~29%.
- Page takes 8.6s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 6.1s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 117.0sClicks 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
- 2 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
- 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
€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
€6.478 /mo
+29.4pp bounce · ~2,944 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€1,00 /mo
13464.6 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~1.3 MB per page loadSaves €1,00/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
Categories
8Performance
Page weighs 6.9 MB (4.3 MB transferred)
Security
All checks pass
Accessibility
18 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 HSTS sites score 78+ on Accessibility; you're at 41 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of Open Graph sites score 75+ on Accessibility; you're at 41 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
HSTS, hosted on Next.js, with Vercel Edge CDN
Stack Architecture
PostHog 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
React 
Sentry 
Webpack 
Vercel Edge 
Next.js 15.5.14 Next.js App Router Vercel All Detected Technologies (11)
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.
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.
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.
PostHog is the open-source, all-in-one product analytics platform.
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
11 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/b978ec54-36a7-83a5-f5a1-abd6e8096067)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/b978ec54-36a7-83a5-f5a1-abd6e8096067"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raycast.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raycast.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
2 sprints · 2h total → projected B (82)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+6Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · Page weighs 6.9 MB (4.3 MB transferred)
- · 18 image-only link(s) without alt text
- · 2 link(s) with no accessible text
- · 3 button(s) with no accessible text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 2 control(s) without accessible label