Skip to content
Scanned
2026-04-22 00:33 UTC
Worker
🇪🇸 Madrid
Duration
46.00s
Vs prev

Audit overview

Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.

Fix Priority Matrix

5 findings

Quick Wins

3

High impact, low effort — start here.

Strategic

2

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

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.

Accessibility › Link & Button Quality
Critical: 2

1 image(s) missing alt attribute

Each image without alt text is a WCAG 1.1.1 failure — invisible to screen-reader users, lost from Google Image Search.

Accessibility › Alt Text Quality
Critical: 3

3 control(s) without accessible label

Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.

Accessibility › Form Accessibility
Critical: 4

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.

Accessibility › Landmark Structure
Critical: 5

No H1 heading found

No H1 means screen-reader users can't identify the page's primary topic, and Google's content-extraction degrades.

Accessibility › Heading Hierarchy
What fixing these means. Your site is in great shape. The remaining improvements are refinements rather than critical fixes. Addressing the critical issues below would have the most immediate impact on your audience reach.
5 accessibility issues exclude users who rely on assistive technology.

Business case

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

Return on investment

$333 investment → $5,560/month returns + USD 157,500 risk avoided

Investment
$333
3.3 h · 5 findings
Monthly returns
$5,560
$66,716/yr
Payback
0.1 mo
+19915% Y1
Regulatory risk avoided USD 157,500
Or — fix only the top 3 findings
$3000.1 mo payback · +22139% 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.
$83 — 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

6 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~21%.

Barriers
6
1 crit 5 warn
Bounce delta
+21pp
added vs baseline
Score
75
B
Speed
0
Trust
1
Usability
2
Content
2
Nav
1
  • 3 form field(s) without a label
    Screen readers skip unlabeled fields; autofill can't identify them; checkout abandonment spikes
    → Associate every input with a visible <label for="…">; add autocomplete attributes
  • No HSTS header
    Returning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request
    → Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
  • Layout shifts during page load
    Content movement causes mis-clicks on CTAs and form fields
    → Add width/height to images; reserve space for late-loading embeds
  • 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, …)
  • Thin content
    Under 300 words — visitors bounce looking for substance, search engines rank competitors first
    → Add a substantive FAQ, product detail, or case-study section

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

Remediation cost

$333 3.3 developer hours at $100/hr
Quick wins
$83 3 fixes in ~50 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

$5,560 / month at risk ~$66,716 / year if left unfixed
Default is 10,000. Use your own number for accurate $-figures.

Compliance Risk

$157,500

ADA Title IIICCPA/CPRA
  • No privacy policy link detected
    CCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
  • Privacy Policy not detected
    CCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
  • No <main> landmark found
    ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000

Bounce-Rate Cost

$5,560 /mo

+20.7pp bounce · ~2,067 lost visitors/mo

CPC: USD 2.69

Bandwidth Waste

$0.04 /mo

503.2 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB

  • Optimize transfer: save ~50 KB per page load
    Saves $0.04/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 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

Bounce-rate model & assumptions

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

Lighthouse

Mobile

91
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
66
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
92
Best Practices Checks for modern web development best practices including HTTPS, no console errors, and secure JavaScript.
100
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.

856 ms

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

1.56 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.

0.192

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

856 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.

1.56 s

Desktop

100
Performance Overall performance score (0–100) based on Core Web Vitals and other metrics. 90+ is good.
64
Accessibility Measures how accessible the page is for users with disabilities. Checks color contrast, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML.
96
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.

257 ms

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

406 ms

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.

0.029

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

312 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.

406 ms

Categories

8
Avg score 87.8

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

HSTS · 2620 peers
You 88
·
Avg 75
+13 above average
0 50 100
Security P98Performance P97Infrastructure P96Sustainability P93Compliance P73SEO P31Content P57Accessibility P47

Top 10% of HSTS sites score 96+ on SEO; you're at 87 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 95% of HSTS sites See full HSTS benchmark →
Open Graph · 3503 peers
You 88
·
Avg 74
+14 above average
0 50 100
Performance P98Security P98Infrastructure P97Sustainability P95SEO P14Compliance P68Content P37Accessibility P47

Top 10% of Open Graph sites score 96+ on SEO; you're at 87 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 96% of Open Graph sites See full Open Graph benchmark →

Technology stack

HSTS, with Nginx CDN

4 technologies detected 2 stack layers 1 with CPE identifier Standard

Stack Architecture

Framework
HSTS Open Graph RSS
CDN
Nginx 1.22.1

All Detected Technologies (4)

Nginx is a web server that can also be used as a reverse proxy, load balancer, mail proxy and HTTP cache.

Categories Web servers, Reverse proxies Website https://nginx.org/en Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header: nginx/1.22.1
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

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

RSS is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format.

Categories Miscellaneous Website https://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Detected by BeaverCheck

Observations (1)

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.

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%2Ff-droid.org)](https://beavercheck.com/sites/f-droid.org)
<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/f-droid.org"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Ff-droid.org" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>
https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Ff-droid.org

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 · 3h total → projected A (93)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

+4

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

3 findings 1h → A (92)
  • · No <main> landmark found
  • · No H1 heading found
  • · 1 button(s) with no accessible text

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

+1

Medium effort, high structural impact

2 findings 2h → A (93)
  • · 3 control(s) without accessible label
  • · 1 image(s) missing alt attribute

Send Feedback