amara.pl website review

About 729 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 5.3 s faster on a phone.

41 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 5.7 s.

About 231 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.4 s faster on a phone.

Your mobile performance score is 29 (desktop: 69). Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.

A phone's processor spends 4.2 s on main-thread work while loading, 2.1 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.

7 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Google CDN and Facebook and others), adding 1.7 MB and 1.2 s of main-thread time.

20 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (209 KiB).

Google Tag Manager costs a phone 477 ms of main-thread work and 584 KiB 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.

Google CDN costs a phone 437 ms of main-thread work and 733 KiB 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.

15 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 197 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

Polyfills for old browsers add 32 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.

Desktop scores 69 but mobile only 29. A gap that wide usually means heavy scripts and images that hit phones hardest.

1 image could be 9 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.

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

Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.

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 visitors wait 5.3 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

Real visitors see the first content after 5.1 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

Your largest element takes 17.0 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 (6.9 s).

Visually, the page fills in at 15.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

The page becomes fully interactive after 19.1 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

The layout shifts by 0.298 while loading, so content jumps under the reader's thumb. Good is under 0.1.

The first text or image appears after 3.2 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.

Scripts block taps and scrolling for 602 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.

Real visitors wait 1.2 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 5.0 s to 5.3 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

Your homepage downloads 3.8 MB in 140 requests on a phone: scripts 1.8 MB (70), images 963 KiB (14) and other files 354 KiB (8). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.

By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.08 g of CO₂e: 129.6 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

4 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.

2 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.

All page content should be contained by landmarks: 5 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

Document should not have more than one contentinfo 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 on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

Page should contain a level-one heading: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

1 form field has no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.

Headings skip levels (h2 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.

Your title is only 21 characters: “Strona główna - Amara”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.

Your meta description is 267 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.

1 link has no real href, so search engines can't follow it.

The homepage links to 91 pages on amara.pl and 7 external pages.

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.

We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 51 found) and read each the way a search engine does.

8 of 15 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.

Large scripts ship without source maps.

1 link from your homepage to your own site is broken, for example https://amara.pl/substancje-do-receptury-aptecznej/ (404).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amara.pl 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.

amara.pl'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.

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

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

Social proof on the homepage: 1 testimonial or review block. Pairing it with named testimonials or customer logos makes it far more convincing.

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

The homepage carries about 653 words of visible text.

amara.pl has no DMARC record, so nothing tells receivers what to do with mail that fails SPF or DKIM. Gmail and Yahoo require DMARC from bulk senders.

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.

Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Meta Pixel (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.

Opening the homepage sets 16 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).

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.

Loading the homepage contacts 9 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.