Global Performance
6/6 locations ✓Strong global performance — average 179ms across 6 locations, fastest from Sao Paulo (52ms), slowest from Madrid (347ms). No CDN detected.
Audit overview
All categories sit comfortably above the 70 threshold; this is a clean audit.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
1High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
4High 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)
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.
No Content-Security-Policy header found
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything users type — credentials, payment data, session tokens.
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.
10 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
Performance issues directly impact user engagement and conversion rates.
752 inline style attribute(s) detected
Inline style attributes force `style-src 'unsafe-inline'` in any CSP -- effectively negating CSP's XSS-mitigation value for stylesheets.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
€1,063 investment → €8,735/month returns + EUR 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 ~27%.
- Page takes 4.7s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 2.2s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 10.4sClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- 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
- 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
Cost of inaction
Compliance Risk
€500,000
- Skip navigation link is missing (WCAG 2.4.1)EAA: EUR 1,000 – EUR 500,000
- Heading level skipped: H1 → H3 (missing H2)EAA: EUR 1,000 – EUR 500,000
- 3 heading(s) are over 120 characters -- likely a misformatted paragraphEAA: EUR 1,000 – EUR 500,000
- 2 image(s) with generic alt textEAA: EUR 1,000 – EUR 500,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
€6,002 /mo
+27.3pp bounce · ~2,728 lost visitors/mo
CPC: EUR 2.20
Bandwidth Waste
€0.31 /mo
4224.0 MB/mo × 0.074 EUR/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~422 KB per page loadSaves €0.31/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.
1.28 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
4.67 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
10.36 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.
5.43 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.
24.33 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
431 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
1.85 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
4.74 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.
3.33 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.
39.83 s
Categories
8Performance
10 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
Security
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Accessibility
2 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 Google Font API sites score 86+ on Compliance; you're at 75 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Framer Sites
Stack Architecture
Contentsquare 
Google Analytics 
Google Tag Manager 
Framer Sites 
Google Font API Google Search Console Google Workspace HSTS 
HTTP/3 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
React All Detected Technologies (12)
Framer is primarily a design and prototyping tool. It allows you to design interactive prototypes of websites and applications using production components and real data.
Google Font API is a web service that supports open-source font files that can be used on your web designs.
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
HTTP/3 is the third major version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol used to exchange information on the World Wide Web.
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.
Contentsquare is an enterprise-level UX optimisation platform.
Google Analytics is a free web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system (TMS) that allows you to quickly and easily update measurement codes and related code fragments collectively known as tags on your website or mobile app.
Observations (2)
No build tool detected
A framework (Google Font API) 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
12 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/efec4480-f0f8-496c-8501-75c3af122abd)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/efec4480-f0f8-496c-8501-75c3af122abd"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftocstudio.co" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftocstudio.coExport & 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 · 12h total → projected A (90)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+2Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · 2 link(s) with no accessible text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+6Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
- · No Content-Security-Policy header found
- · 10 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
- · 752 inline style attribute(s) detected