Completed website audit

Your website audit report.

https://wan4ai.app

Anyone with this link can view the report.

Completed website audit

Your audit findings, prioritized.

This report reflects automated checks of wan4ai.app at the time of the audit.

Automated website health

Generally strong foundations

86/100

86 out of 100

High confidence37 of 41 applicable checks completed · 88% evidence coverage

The completed checks found generally strong automated foundations, with some measured weaknesses to address.

This score reflects automated technical and structural checks. It does not grade visual design, branding, copy quality, or overall persuasiveness.

Category influence is scaled by evidence coverage. Unavailable checks do not count as failures.

Critical issues: 0
Improvements: 5
Opportunity: 1
Passed checks: 31

Some rendered mobile checks have reduced confidence because the site could not be fully reproduced within the audit's secure rendering limits.
Automated accessibility checks identify detectable issues but do not certify WCAG conformance or legal compliance.
Conversion foundations checks assess detectable customer paths, form labels, and rendered action geometry. They do not grade design, messaging, persuasion, or completed transactions.
Mobile experience was partially evaluated (69% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.
Accessibility was partially evaluated (84% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.
Conversion foundations was partially evaluated (59% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.

Health by category

Measured strengths and issues.

SEO

Strong measurable foundations with only minor issues detected.

Full evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong automated foundations

Performance

Generally strong measured foundations, with some improvements worth addressing.

Full evidence

88/100

88 out of 100Generally strong foundations

Mobile experience

69% of this category was evaluated. This rating describes completed checks only.

Partial · 69% evidence

98/100

98 out of 100Strong results in completed checks · Limited evidence

Accessibility

A fair foundation with some meaningful improvements needed.

Partial · 84% evidence

77/100

77 out of 100Mixed foundations

Conversion foundations

59% of this category was evaluated. This rating describes completed checks only.

Partial · 59% evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong results in completed checks · Limited evidence

Technical health

Strong measurable foundations with only minor issues detected.

Full evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong automated foundations

Prioritized findings

Fix the issues with the greatest impact first.

High priorityAccessibility

Some text does not have enough color contrast

Google's automated mobile test detected text/background combinations that failed its contrast audit.

Why it matters

Low contrast can make content difficult or impossible to read for many visitors.

Recommended fix

Increase contrast for the affected text while preserving visible hover, focus, and disabled states.

High priorityPerformance

Visitors wait too long for the first visible content

The mobile lab test took longer than the recommended range to display the first text or image.

Why it matters

Early visual feedback reassures visitors that the page is loading and usable.

Recommended fix

Reduce render-blocking styles and scripts, improve server response time, and prioritize above-the-fold content.

First Contentful Paint: 3.1 sGoogle PageSpeed Insights mobile lab measurement. Values can vary between runs.

Medium priorityPerformance

Your main content loads slowly on mobile

The largest visible content took longer than the recommended range to appear in the mobile lab test.

Why it matters

Visitors may leave before they can understand the page when its main content is slow to appear.

Recommended fix

Optimize the largest above-the-fold image or content block, reduce blocking resources, and retest the page.

Largest Contentful Paint: 3.8 sGoogle PageSpeed Insights mobile lab measurement. Values can vary between runs.

Medium priorityMobile experience

Potential small controls in the restricted mobile render

The restricted mobile render showed a potential issue, but reproduction fidelity is insufficient to confirm it as a user-facing defect. Render fidelity: moderate.

Why it matters

Very small controls are difficult to activate accurately on a touchscreen.

Recommended fix

Check this measurement on the live page at common phone widths before deciding whether a layout fix is needed.

Observed: 1 of 34 visible controls rendered below 20px in both width and height.

Low priorityMobile experience

Potential small text in the restricted mobile render

The restricted mobile render showed a potential issue, but reproduction fidelity is insufficient to confirm it as a user-facing defect. Render fidelity: moderate.

Why it matters

Very small text can be difficult to read without zooming on a phone.

Recommended fix

Check this measurement on the live page at common phone widths before deciding whether a layout fix is needed.

Observed: 25 of 152 sampled text elements rendered below 12px.

OpportunityMobile experience

Most images do not advertise responsive alternatives

0 of 4 images use srcset or picture markup. CSS sizing may still be responsive, but the browser has fewer source-size choices.

Why it matters

Responsive image sources can reduce unnecessary downloads on smaller screens.

Recommended fix

Provide appropriately sized source candidates for large content images where the implementation supports them.

Keep the report

Send this report to your inbox.

We’ll email a direct link so you can return to these scores, findings, and recommended next steps when you are ready.