Global Performance
6/6 locations ✓Acceptable global latency — average 249ms across 6 locations, fastest from Amsterdam (40ms), slowest from Sao Paulo (407ms). Assets on Akamai (host www.rheinmetall.com, 26 assets); document served directly from origin.
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
Your mail setup has problems.
rheinmetall.ch fails 2 mail checks: No DMARC record found, No SPF record found. This is the kind of misconfiguration that sends your mail to spam.
Top Priorities (5)
Connection is not encrypted (plain HTTP)
Plain-HTTP sites leak everything — credentials, session cookies, browsing history — to anyone on the network path.
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.
1 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
Performance issues directly impact user engagement and conversion rates.
3 publicly-accessible JavaScript source map(s)
Source maps reveal original source code (variable names, comments, file structure) and are shipped to production by mistake almost universally. The standard fix is a one-line build-tool config change.
4 render-blocking <script src> tag(s) without async/defer
Performance issues directly impact user engagement and conversion rates.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
CHF 780 investment → CHF 17,827/month returns
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 ~38%.
- 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
- Site is not served over HTTPSBrowsers show "Not Secure" in the URL bar — visitors abandon before reading→ Install a TLS certificate (Let's Encrypt is free) and redirect HTTP → HTTPS
- 3 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
- High main-thread blocking timePage is non-interactive for 309ms after first paint→ Defer third-party scripts and split large bundles
- Content is hard to readGraduate-level reading difficulty — limits the addressable audience for product or blog pages→ Shorten sentences; replace jargon with plain language; target Flesch ease ≥60
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
Bounce-Rate Cost
CHF 11’668 /mo
+37.7pp bounce · ~3,767 lost visitors/mo
CPC: CHF 3.10
Bandwidth Waste
CHF 0.31 /mo
4311.9 MB/mo × 0.071 CHF/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~431 KB per page loadSaves CHF 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 2 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.
5.43 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
8.59 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
309 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.
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.
8.70 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.65 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.08 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
28 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.
2.83 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.
2.17 s
Categories
8Performance
1 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
Security
Connection is not encrypted (plain HTTP)
Accessibility
Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
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 core-js sites score 94+ on Infrastructure; you're at 74 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Top 10% of HSTS sites score 95+ on Infrastructure; you're at 74 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
HSTS
Stack Architecture
Google Tag Manager 
Nuxt.js 
Open Graph 
Priority Hints 
Swiper 
Tailwind CSS 
Usercentrics 
Vue.js 
Webpack 
core-js 3.18.3All Detected Technologies (11)
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
Nuxt is a Vue framework for developing modern web applications.
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.
Swiper is a JavaScript library that creates modern touch sliders with hardware-accelerated transitions.
Usercentrics is a SaaS enterprise solution for Consent Management (CMP) that helps enterprise customers to obtain, manage and document the user consent.
Vue.js is an open-source model–view–viewmodel JavaScript framework for building user interfaces and single-page applications.
Webpack is an open-source JavaScript module bundler.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
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 (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/sites/rheinmetall.ch)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/rheinmetall.ch"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rheinmetall.ch" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rheinmetall.chExport & 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 (87)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+5Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
- · Connection is not encrypted (plain HTTP)
- · 3 publicly-accessible JavaScript source map(s)
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+2Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 1 `@font-face` rule(s) without `font-display` -- causes FOIT
- · 4 render-blocking <script src> tag(s) without async/defer