Audit overview
Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.
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)
1 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.
155 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.
156 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing
High HTTP request count — bundling, sprite-ing, and HTTP/2 server push can reduce per-request overhead.
Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing
COEP enforces that all embedded resources opt-in to cross-origin embedding — required for cross-origin isolation features.
Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy header is missing
COOP isolates your top-level browsing context from cross-origin windows — without it, popup-based side-channel attacks remain possible.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$575 investment → $8,102/month returns + USD 157,500 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 ~30%.
- Page takes 15.6s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 13.1s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 1.8sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- Severe layout shift during page loadUsers mis-click when content jumps — converting intent into frustration→ Reserve space for images, ads, and embeds with explicit width/height
- No HSTS headerReturning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request→ Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
- 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
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
$157,500
- No privacy policy link detectedCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
- Trackers detected but no privacy policy foundCCPA/CPRA: USD 2,500 – USD 7,500
Bounce-Rate Cost
$8,102 /mo
+30.1pp bounce · ~3,012 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.40 /mo
4986.8 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~499 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 1 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.
3.69 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
15.63 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
1.81 s
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
1.257
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
7.75 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.
15.68 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.30 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
4.17 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
101 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.691
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
2.58 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.
4.18 s
Categories
8Performance
155 third-party resources (100% of weight)
Security
Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing
Accessibility
1 link(s) with no accessible 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 Apple sites score 71+ on Accessibility; you're at 53 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of Facebook sites score 69+ on Accessibility; you're at 53 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Apple, with F5 BigIP CDN
Stack Architecture
Acoustic Experience Analytics 
Adobe Analytics 
Adobe Experience Platform Launch 
Dynatrace 
Open Graph Proofpoint 
ServiceNow 
Vue.js 
lit-element 4.1.1 lit-html 3.2.1
F5 BigIP All Detected Technologies (17)
F5's BIG-IP is a family of products covering software and hardware designed around application availability, access control, and security solutions.
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.
ServiceNow is a cloud computing platform to help companies manage digital workflows for enterprise operations.
Vue.js is an open-source model–view–viewmodel JavaScript framework for building user interfaces and single-page applications.
lit-element is a simple base class for creating web components that work in any web page with any framework. lit-element uses lit-html to render into shadow DOM, and adds API to manage properties and attributes.
lit-html is a simple, modern, safe, small and fast HTML templating library for JavaScript.
Acoustic Experience Analytics (Tealeaf), formerly known as IBM Tealeaf Customer Experience on Cloud, is a SaaS-based analytics solution that delivers Tealeaf core capabilities in an managed cloud environment. Tealeaf captures and manages each visitor interaction on your website and mobile applications.
Adobe Analytics is a web analytics, marketing and cross-channel analytics application.
Adobe Experience Cloud Launch is an extendable tag management solution for Adobe Experience Cloud, Adobe Experience Platform, and other applications.
Dynatrace is a technology company that produces a software intelligence platform based on artificial intelligence to monitor and optimise application performance and development, IT infrastructure, and user experience for businesses and government agencies throughout the world.
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
17 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/d393f91f-1eb2-429b-a495-ed452e7615ad)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/d393f91f-1eb2-429b-a495-ed452e7615ad"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcigna.com" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcigna.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 · 6h total → projected B (82)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+4Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 1 link(s) with no accessible text
- · 155 third-party resources (100% of weight)
- · Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy header is missing
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+2Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy header is missing
- · 156 HTTP requests — consider bundling or reducing