Website review, no card needed
actawear.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 19 October 202645 issues · 86 checks
This review found 45 issues worth fixing on actawear.com, 13 of them high impact, across 86 checks. The most urgent: page weight: 54.5 MB in 142 requests. Your full playbook turns these into prioritised fixes alongside reviews, competitors and channels.
- Homepage
- Phone render
- Links and pages
- Google PageSpeed
Google PageSpeed Insights (opens in a new tab), mobile
Site score
76C- #66,967 of 109,268 reviewed websitesbeats 34%
- #42,962 of 61,834 online storesbeats 26%
- #40,769 of 56,393 Shopify storesbeats 23%
Closest competitors among Shopify stores
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.2 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.2 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.2 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.2 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.2 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.1 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.1 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.1 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.1 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.8 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 71 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 71 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 71 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 70 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 72 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 75 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 69 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 68 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 67 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 70 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 71 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 72 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 77 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
Speed
Render-blocking requests
1.6 s8 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.6 s.
Improve image delivery
150 ms · 9.5 MB29 images could be 9.5 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (Shopify, Klaviyo and Google Tag Manager and others), adding 5.6 MB and 902 ms of main-thread time.
Shopify adds 489 ms
489 msShopify costs a phone 489 ms of main-thread work and 5.2 MB of downloads while your page loads. Loading it after the page is usable, or only on the pages that need it, takes that off the critical path.
Mobile performance score: 56
56/100Your mobile performance score is 56 (desktop: 88). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
706 KiB20 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (706 KiB).
Main-thread work: 3.4 s
A phone's processor spends 3.4 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.2 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
Reduce unused JavaScript
150 ms · 100 KiBAbout 100 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
13 long tasks on the main thread
13 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 132 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Font display
50 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 50 ms).
Legacy JavaScript
25 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 25 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.
Phones get a much slower page than desktops
Desktop scores 88 but mobile only 56. A gap that wide usually means heavy scripts and images that hit phones hardest.
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.
Forced reflow
Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.
1 checks passed
Server response: 13 ms
13 msYour server sent the HTML in 13 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
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.
Largest Contentful Paint: 9.7 s
9.7 sYour largest element takes 9.7 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the element shown below. Most of its time is resource load delay (4.7 s).
Speed Index: 9.5 s
9.5 sVisually, the page fills in at 9.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
First Contentful Paint: 4.7 s
4.7 sThe first text or image appears after 4.7 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Time to Interactive: 9.9 s
9.9 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 9.9 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Real-user LCP: 3.0 s
3.0 sReal visitors wait 3.0 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Largest content (LCP) got 34% slower for real visitors
+34%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.3 s to 1.8 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.3 s
2.3 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 1.6 s
1.6 sReal visitors wait 1.6 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
5 images without width and height
5 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
+5%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 71 ms to 77 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user INP: 78 ms
78 msReal visitors wait 78 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.00
0.00For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Total Blocking Time: 150 ms
150 msScripts block the page for only 150 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 54.5 MB in 142 requests
54.5 MBYour homepage downloads 54.5 MB in 142 requests on a phone: media 42.8 MB (14), images 10.9 MB (57) and scripts 500 KiB (47). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
1 image over 500 KB
rufflesock2.webp weighs 1.9 MB. On a phone connection a single image that size takes seconds.
13 images in older formats
13 images (4.7 MB) are JPEG, PNG or GIF. The same pictures as WebP or AVIF are usually much smaller at the same quality, and every current browser shows them.
An image on the first screen is lazy-loaded
NoCopy_AfterDarkHeaders_Mobile.webp is on the first screen but marked loading="lazy", so the browser waits before fetching it and the page looks finished later. Load it eagerly (and give it fetchpriority="high" if it is the main image).
2 images far larger than shown
245 KiB2 images are downloaded at several times the size a phone draws them, for example accessories_5bd4b6e2-8bfd-4a86-99c3-fe65776c8b78.png at 2,084 px wide, shown at 358 px. Resized copies would save about 245 KiB.
About 15.4 g of CO₂ per visit
15.45 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 15.45 g of CO₂e: 1853.9 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
2 buttons without a name
2 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
14 text elements with low contrast
14 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
3 tap targets too small
3 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
1 image without alt text
1 image has no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
Banner landmark should not be contained in another landmark (1 element)
Banner landmark should not be contained in another landmark: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Document should not have more than one banner landmark (1 element)
Document should not have more than one banner landmark: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (1 element)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
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.
6 links without text
6 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
2 form fields without a label
2 form fields have no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h4, h1 → h3 and h2 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (2 elements).
1 checks passed
47 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 57 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 47 passed and 10 failed. 2 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No meta description
No meta description, so Google writes its own snippet from whatever text it finds.
No structured data
No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.
4 H1 headlines
There are 4 <h1> headlines (“After Dark by Avery Woods”, “HydroJug X Avery Woods” and “ACTA In The City”). One clear main headline is easier for people and search engines.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
No social preview image
No Open Graph image (also missing: og:title, og:description), so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
96 internal links, 19 external
The homepage links to 96 pages on actawear.com and 19 external pages.
3 checks passed
Title: 49 characters
Your title is a healthy 49 characters: “ACTA | Premium Activewear & Athletic Clothing”.
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://actawear.com/sitemap.xml.
AI search readiness
No Organization structured data
There is no Organization (or LocalBusiness) JSON-LD, so search engines and AI assistants have no machine-readable facts about who runs the site: its name, logo, profiles and contact details.
No llms.txt
There is no https://actawear.com/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.
2 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.
Text is in the HTML
Your server sends the page's text in the HTML (333 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
6 pages share 2 titles
https://actawear.com/products/crew-socks-white-dark-gray, https://actawear.com/products/crew-socks-white-military-green and https://actawear.com/products/crew-socks-white-wild-berry all use the title “ACTA | Crew Socks”, and 1 other title repeat too. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
15 pages without a meta description
https://actawear.com/collections/all-products, https://actawear.com/products/ruffle-socks-vintage-white, https://actawear.com/products/crew-socks-white-dark-gray, https://actawear.com/products/baseball-cap-dark-heather-gray, https://actawear.com/products/acta-tote-dark-gray-pinstripes and https://actawear.com/products/traveler-40oz-blush-camo and 9 others have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 46 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
5 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
Every page has an H1
Each page we checked has a main headline.
No linked page is hidden from search
None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.
Every page has a title
All 15 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
1 JavaScript error while loading
1 error was logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_FAILED”.
2 checks passed
Tap targets are thumb-sized
38 of 44 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Content and conversion
Thin social proof
Social proof on the homepage: 2 trust badges. Pairing it with named testimonials or customer logos makes it far more convincing.
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 188 words
The homepage has only about 188 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.
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.
4 checks passed
Clear next step on the first screen
On a phone, the first screen shows a clear next step: “ACTA Download our official app! GET”.
12 calls to action
The homepage has 12 calls to action, for example “Shop All”, “Shop Hydrojug x Acta” and “Learn More”.
16 short forms
16 short forms (1 field at most) are right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Analytics.
Privacy and tracking
2 trackers load before any consent
2Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Tag Manager and Klaviyo (measured from a US location before any click). No consent tool was detected. Visitors from the EU, UK and several US states must be asked first.
3 cookies set on arrival
3Opening the homepage sets 3 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.
22 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 22 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
Security, domain, email and software versions
The security, domain and email checks, software and plugin versions, and any app with a known security problem are visible only to people at actawear.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Framework
- Tailwind CSS
- E-commerce
- Shopify
- Analytics
- Google Analytics
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 45 issues on actawear.com, including 17 speed issues, 5 SEO issues and 3 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
14-day money-back guarantee: not happy for any reason, email us within 14 days and we refund in full.