Website review, no card needed

abstract.com logo

abstract.com website review

Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 23 October 202619 issues · 81 checks

This review found 19 issues worth fixing on abstract.com, 5 of them high impact, across 81 checks. The most urgent: fails Core Web Vitals for real visitors. Your full playbook turns these into prioritised fixes alongside reviews, competitors and channels.

  1. Homepage
  2. Phone render
  3. Links and pages
  4. Google PageSpeed

Google PageSpeed Insights (opens in a new tab), mobile

Real-visitor load time (LCP)75th percentile, phones
6.7 s4.2 sMay 2Oct 176.1 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
May 2, 20264.6 s
May 9, 20266.1 s
May 16, 20264.8 s
May 23, 20265.2 s
May 30, 20265.8 s
Jun 6, 20265.0 s
Jun 13, 20266.1 s
Jun 20, 20264.8 s
Jun 27, 20264.5 s
Jul 4, 20265.1 s
Jul 11, 20264.9 s
Jul 18, 20266.0 s
Jul 25, 20266.1 s
Aug 1, 20266.0 s
Aug 8, 20266.1 s
Aug 15, 20266.1 s
Aug 22, 20266.4 s
Aug 29, 20266.3 s
Sep 5, 20266.4 s
Sep 12, 20266.3 s
Sep 19, 20266.1 s
Sep 26, 20265.8 s
Oct 3, 20266.0 s
Oct 10, 20266.1 s
Oct 17, 20266.1 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
104 ms67 msMay 2Oct 1771 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
May 2, 202691 ms
May 9, 202692 ms
May 16, 202681 ms
May 23, 202680 ms
May 30, 202676 ms
Jun 6, 202679 ms
Jun 13, 202682 ms
Jun 20, 202691 ms
Jun 27, 202688 ms
Jul 4, 202680 ms
Jul 11, 202683 ms
Jul 18, 202673 ms
Jul 25, 202680 ms
Aug 1, 202689 ms
Aug 8, 202694 ms
Aug 15, 202695 ms
Sep 19, 2026100 ms
Sep 26, 202686 ms
Oct 3, 202680 ms
Oct 10, 202679 ms
Oct 17, 202671 ms

Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab): real Chrome visitors over rolling 28-day periods.

One score from every part of this review. How it works

Live view · interaction off

Speed

1 to fix98
  • Render-blocking requests

    900 ms

    9 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 900 ms.

  • Reduce unused JavaScript

    280 ms · 27 KiB

    About 27 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 280 ms faster on a phone.

  • Font display

    50 ms

    Web fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 50 ms).

  • Legacy JavaScript

    8 KiB

    Polyfills for old browsers add 8 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.

  • Chained critical requests

    Critical files load one after another instead of in parallel (3 chains). Preconnecting to key origins and preloading the hero image shortens the chain.

3 checks passed
  • Mobile performance score: 98

    98/100

    Your mobile performance score is 98 (desktop: 99). That is in Google's “good” band (90 and up).

  • Main-thread work: 0.4 s

    A phone's processor spends 0.4 s on main-thread work while loading, 65 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.

  • Server response: 2 ms

    2 ms

    Your server sent the HTML in 2 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.

Core Web Vitals

3 to fix67
  • Fails Core Web Vitals for real visitors

    Real Chrome users on phones do not pass Google's Core Web Vitals on this page (28-day field data from the Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab)). Google uses this in ranking.

  • Real-user LCP: 6.5 s

    6.5 s

    Real visitors wait 6.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

  • Real-user TTFB: 1.0 s

    1.0 s

    Real visitors wait 1.0 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

  • Largest content (LCP) got 13% slower for real visitors

    +13%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 4.6 s to 6.1 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

10 checks passed
  • Real-user INP: 65 ms

    65 ms

    Real visitors wait 65 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

  • Real-user CLS: 0.00

    0.00

    For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.

  • Real-user FCP: 1.2 s

    1.2 s

    Real visitors see the first content after 1.2 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

  • Tap response (INP) got 18% faster for real visitors

    -18%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 91 ms to 71 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

  • Speed Index: 3.2 s

    3.2 s

    Visually, the page fills in at 3.2 s (Speed Index), inside the 3.4 s “good” threshold.

  • Largest Contentful Paint: 2.1 s

    2.1 s

    Your largest element renders in 2.1 s on a phone, inside Google's 2.5 s “good” threshold. The largest element is the element shown below.

  • First Contentful Paint: 1.2 s

    1.2 s

    The first text or image appears after 1.2 s, inside the 1.8 s “good” threshold.

  • Time to Interactive: 2.1 s

    2.1 s

    The page is fully interactive after 2.1 s.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0

    0

    The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).

  • Total Blocking Time: 0 ms

    0 ms

    Scripts block the page for only 0 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.

Images and page weight

100
  • About 0.06 g of CO₂ per visit

    0.06 g

    By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.06 g of CO₂e: 7.1 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

1 checks passed
  • Page weight: 215 KiB in 13 requests

    215 KiB

    Your homepage downloads 215 KiB in 13 requests on a phone: scripts 113 KiB (8), fonts 81 KiB (2) and stylesheets 10 KiB (2). That is a lean page.

Accessibility

1 to fixGoogle 10098
  • All page content should be contained by landmarks (1 element)

    All page content should be contained by landmarks: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

1 checks passed
  • 27 automated accessibility rules passed

    axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 28 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 27 passed and 1 failed. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.

SEO

2 to fixGoogle 10088
  • Title is short (19 characters)

    Your title is only 19 characters: “About us - Abstract”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.

  • Meta description is long (297 characters)

    Your meta description is 297 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.

  • 11 internal links, 2 external

    The homepage links to 11 pages on abstract.com and 2 external pages.

6 checks passed
  • One H1 headline

    Your main headline reads: “Finding Futures.”.

  • Canonical URL set

    The canonical URL is https://www.abstract.com/.

  • Structured data in place

    Structured data found: BreadcrumbList, Organization, WebPage and WebSite.

  • Open Graph tags complete

    Open Graph tags are complete, so shared links show a title, description and image.

  • robots.txt in place

    robots.txt is in place and points crawlers to your sitemap.

  • XML sitemap found

    Your XML sitemap is reachable at https://www.abstract.com/sitemap_index.xml.

AI search readiness

1 to fix83
  • Organization data is thin (3 of 6 facts)

    Your Organization JSON-LD is missing sameAs (social profiles), description and contact details. These are the facts AI assistants use to describe a business and to tell it apart from others with a similar name.

  • No llms.txt

    There is no /llms.txt, a short Markdown guide to your key pages for AI tools (llmstxt.org). It is optional and few AI tools read it yet, so treat it as a cheap extra.

1 checks passed
  • AI answer engines may read the site

    Your robots.txt lets the crawlers behind ChatGPT search, Claude and Perplexity read the site and cite it in answers.

Other pages

2 to fix90
  • 3 pages without a meta description

    /people, /companies-list and /office have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.

  • 2 pages without an H1

    /people and /office have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.

  • 1 page with very little text

    /office has under 150 words in the HTML. Thin pages rarely rank; if the text loads with JavaScript, crawlers that don't run it see even less.

  • 3 internal pages checked

    We fetched 3 pages linked from your homepage and read each the way a search engine does.

5 checks passed
  • Linked pages load

    All 3 pages we checked loaded without an error.

  • Canonical URLs point to themselves

    No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.

  • Titles are unique

    Every page we checked has its own title.

  • No linked page is hidden from search

    None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.

  • Every page has a title

    All 3 pages that loaded have a <title>.

Best practices

1 to fixGoogle 10093
  • 2 small tap targets

    2 of 7 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.

2 checks passed
  • No console errors

    No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.

  • Mobile viewport set

    The page declares a mobile viewport.

Security and trust

2 to fix86
  • No HSTS header

    No Strict-Transport-Security header, so browsers may still try plain http first on a return visit.

  • No Content-Security-Policy

    No Content-Security-Policy header, the main browser-side defence against injected scripts.

  • No clickjacking protection

    Neither X-Frame-Options nor a CSP frame-ancestors policy is set, so any site can embed yours in a frame.

  • No X-Content-Type-Options

    X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff is missing, so browsers may guess file types.

  • No Referrer-Policy

    No Referrer-Policy header, so full URLs can leak to the sites you link to.

  • No Permissions-Policy

    No Permissions-Policy header to switch off camera, microphone and location for embedded content.

  • No security.txt

    There is no /.well-known/security.txt telling researchers how to report a security problem to you.

5 checks passed
  • Served over HTTPS

    The homepage is served over HTTPS (abstract.com).

  • Valid certificate (60 days left)

    The certificate from Let's Encrypt · YE1 verifies for abstract.com and is valid for another 60 days.

  • http:// redirects to https

    http://abstract.com redirects to the secure version.

  • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3

    The server speaks HTTP/2 and advertises HTTP/3, so browsers load many files over one connection.

  • All 5 links work

    All 5 links checked from your homepage (4 internal, 1 external) answered without errors.

Domain and trust

  • No CAA record

    abstract.com has no CAA record, so any certificate authority may issue a certificate for it. A CAA record naming your provider (for example letsencrypt.org) closes that door.

  • DNSSEC is off

    abstract.com's DNS answers are not signed. DNSSEC stops attackers forging them to send visitors or email elsewhere; most registrars switch it on in a click, though most sites still run without it.

2 checks passed
  • Domain is 34 years old

    34 years

    abstract.com was registered in Aug 1992 through Name.com, Inc.. An established domain carries more trust with email providers and search engines.

  • Registered until Aug 2035

    abstract.com is registered until Aug 2035.

Content and conversion

6 to fix25
  • No call to action on the first screen

    On a phone, there is no call to action on the first screen: visitors have to scroll to find out what to do next.

  • No calls to action

    We found no call-to-action buttons or links (such as “Book a demo” or “Get a quote”) anywhere on the homepage.

  • No social proof

    No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.

  • No analytics detected

    No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.

  • No direct contact details

    No phone number or email link on the homepage, so ready-to-buy visitors have one fewer way to reach you.

  • Only about 55 words

    The homepage has only about 55 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.

  • No form on the homepage

    There is no form on the homepage, so every lead has to click through to another page first.

  • No risk reducer

    No guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card) is mentioned, which is often what tips a hesitant visitor.

Email authentication

85
  • Email authentication score: 85/100

    Email authentication: SPF record 25 points, plus 15 when it ends in -all (10 for ~all); DMARC record 25, plus 25 for a reject policy (15 for quarantine); a DKIM key on a common selector 10.

3 checks passed
  • DMARC policy: quarantine

    DMARC tells receivers to quarantine mail that fails authentication.

  • SPF in place (~all)

    An SPF record lists your sending servers and marks other mail as suspicious (~all): “v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all”.

  • DKIM signing found

    A DKIM key is published (selector “google”), so receivers can verify mail really came from you.

Privacy and tracking

  • 2 cookies set on arrival

    2

    Opening the homepage sets 2 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).

  • No consent tool detected

    No known cookie consent tool loads with the page. Some sites build their own banner, and some only show one to visitors from the EU.

1 checks passed
  • No known trackers before consent

    No known advertising or analytics trackers load before a visitor clicks anything (measured from a US location before any click).

Go beyond the website

What your $25 Growth Playbook adds

This review found 19 issues on abstract.com, including 4 speed issues, 2 SEO issues and 6 conversion gaps. That is the website alone. The full Growth Playbook pairs these findings with what your customers say in public reviews and communities and what your closest competitors do better, then turns everything into at least 20 prioritised ideas, each with the evidence behind it, a step-by-step playbook, a metric and an owner.

  • 28 research agents read your site, reviews, competitors, communities and public filings
  • Customer review mining (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot and more) and voice-of-pain analysis in your buyers’ own words
  • Competitor intelligence with battlecards for your closest rivals
  • Ideal customer profile, buyer segments and buying-stage funnel
  • Ranked channels, outreach sequences and content angles
  • Live Reddit threads where buyers ask for what you sell, with draft replies
  • Earned media and PR openings
  • At least 20 ideas with evidence, a step-by-step playbook, metric, owner, effort and impact, grouped into this week, this quarter, big bets and wildcards, plus a 30/60/90-day roadmap
  • PDF, Markdown, CSV, Notion and Linear exports, and a shareable page your team can track progress on
  • Refresh the playbook later to see what changed

By continuing you agree to the Terms and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

Free requests are written in the order they come in, so it can take a while. Pay $25 and yours is ready within a few hours. Either way you get a shareable link and a PDF.

  • No subscription
  • Free, or $25 to skip the line
  • Money-back guarantee

14-day money-back guarantee: not happy for any reason, email us within 14 days and we refund in full.

Get the full playbook · $25