Website review, no card needed

apgroup.com logo

apgroup.com website review

Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 20 October 202649 issues · 111 checks

This review found 49 issues worth fixing on apgroup.com, 23 of them high impact, across 111 checks. The most urgent: improve image delivery. 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
2.6 s1.9 sMay 2Oct 172.1 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
May 2, 20262.0 s
May 9, 20262.1 s
May 16, 20262.3 s
May 23, 20262.3 s
May 30, 20262.4 s
Jun 6, 20262.4 s
Jun 13, 20262.4 s
Jun 20, 20262.4 s
Jun 27, 20262.4 s
Jul 4, 20262.4 s
Jul 11, 20262.4 s
Jul 18, 20262.3 s
Jul 25, 20262.3 s
Aug 1, 20262.3 s
Aug 8, 20262.4 s
Aug 15, 20262.4 s
Aug 22, 20262.4 s
Aug 29, 20262.5 s
Sep 5, 20262.2 s
Sep 12, 20262.1 s
Sep 19, 20262.0 s
Sep 26, 20262.0 s
Oct 3, 20262.1 s
Oct 10, 20262.2 s
Oct 17, 20262.1 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
113 ms98 msMay 2Oct 17111 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
May 2, 2026108 ms
May 9, 2026109 ms
May 16, 2026109 ms
May 23, 2026107 ms
May 30, 2026107 ms
Jun 6, 2026110 ms
Jun 13, 2026108 ms
Jun 20, 2026109 ms
Jun 27, 2026111 ms
Jul 4, 2026110 ms
Jul 11, 2026110 ms
Jul 18, 2026107 ms
Jul 25, 2026104 ms
Aug 1, 2026105 ms
Aug 8, 2026107 ms
Aug 15, 2026108 ms
Aug 22, 2026110 ms
Aug 29, 2026110 ms
Sep 5, 2026104 ms
Sep 12, 2026102 ms
Sep 19, 2026100 ms
Sep 26, 2026100 ms
Oct 3, 2026104 ms
Oct 10, 2026108 ms
Oct 17, 2026111 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

8 to fix53
  • Improve image delivery

    1.2 s · 10.0 MB

    47 images could be 10.0 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.2 s faster on a phone.

  • Reduce unused JavaScript

    1.7 s · 217 KiB

    About 217 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.7 s faster on a phone.

  • Render-blocking requests

    1.4 s

    10 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.4 s.

  • Main-thread work: 4.3 s

    A phone's processor spends 4.3 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.9 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.

  • Mobile performance score: 53

    53/100

    Your mobile performance score is 53 (desktop: 48). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.

  • Google Tag Manager adds 440 ms

    440 ms

    Google Tag Manager costs a phone 440 ms of main-thread work and 418 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.

  • 11 long tasks on the main thread

    11 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 444 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

  • 1,817 HTML elements

    The page has 1,817 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.

  • 4 third-party services on the page

    4 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Unpkg and amorepacific.com and others), adding 427 KiB and 442 ms of main-thread time.

  • Reduce unused CSS

    150 ms · 42 KiB

    About 42 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.

  • Minify CSS

    11 KiB

    11 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.

  • 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.

  • Use efficient cache lifetimes

    2 KiB

    5 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (2 KiB).

  • Minify JavaScript

    2 KiB

    2 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.

1 checks passed
  • Server response: 2 ms

    2 ms

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

Core Web Vitals

10 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: 6.8 s

    6.8 s

    Real visitors wait 6.8 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

  • Real-user TTFB: 1.9 s

    1.9 s

    Real visitors wait 1.9 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

  • Largest Contentful Paint: 40.0 s

    40.0 s

    Your largest element takes 40.0 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Create New Beauty”.

  • Speed Index: 21.6 s

    21.6 s

    Visually, the page fills in at 21.6 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

  • Time to Interactive: 43.4 s

    43.4 s

    The page becomes fully interactive after 43.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

  • Real-user FCP: 2.6 s

    2.6 s

    Real visitors see the first content after 2.6 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

  • 50 images without width and height

    50 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.

  • Total Blocking Time: 421 ms

    421 ms

    Scripts block taps and scrolling for 421 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.

  • First Contentful Paint: 2.2 s

    2.2 s

    The first text or image appears after 2.2 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.

  • Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors

    +1%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 108 ms to 111 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

  • Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors

    +5%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.0 s to 2.1 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

3 checks passed
  • Real-user INP: 153 ms

    153 ms

    Real visitors wait 153 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.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0

    0

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

Images and page weight

4 to fix38
  • Page weight: 22.5 MB in 156 requests

    22.5 MB

    Your homepage downloads 22.5 MB in 156 requests on a phone: images 11.8 MB (95), media 9.7 MB (4) and scripts 577 KiB (36). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.

  • 10 images over 500 KB

    10 images weigh 9.0 MB together. On a phone connection a single image that size takes seconds.

  • 34 images in older formats

    34 images (10.9 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.

  • 35 images below the first screen load straight away

    35 images further down the page (10.8 MB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.

  • About 6.4 g of CO₂ per visit

    6.39 g

    By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 6.39 g of CO₂e: 766.4 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

1 checks passed
  • Images are sized for phones

    No image is downloaded at more than three times the size it is drawn on a phone.

Accessibility

9 to fixGoogle 7486
  • Invalid ARIA attributes

    2 elements use ARIA attributes their role does not allow, which confuses screen readers.

  • Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children (2 elements)

    Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.

  • ARIA attributes must conform to valid values (1 element)

    ARIA attributes must conform to valid values: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated critical by axe-core.

  • ARIA input fields must have an accessible name (3 elements)

    ARIA input fields must have an accessible name: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.

  • Interactive controls must not be nested (2 elements)

    Interactive controls must not be nested: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.

  • 2 tap targets too small

    2 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.

  • Zoom is disabled

    The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.

  • Alternative text of images should not be repeated as text (20 elements)

    Alternative text of images should not be repeated as text: 20 elements on the page fail this check, rated minor by axe-core.

  • Elements marked as presentational should be consistently ignored (2 elements)

    Elements marked as presentational should be consistently ignored: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated minor by axe-core.

  • Headings skip levels

    Headings skip levels (h1 → h3, h1 → h3 and h1 → h3), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.

2 checks passed
  • Every image has alt text

    All 158 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.

  • 45 automated accessibility rules passed

    axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 55 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 45 passed and 10 failed. 5 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.

SEO

4 to fixGoogle 8380
  • No meta description

    No meta description, so Google writes its own snippet from whatever text it finds.

  • 10 H1 headlines

    There are 10 <h1> headlines (“”, “Home” and “Latest Amorepacific News”). 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.

  • 25 links with vague text

    25 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.

  • Open Graph partly set

    Open Graph is missing og:description, so shared links fall back to guesses.

  • No X (Twitter) card tag

    No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.

  • 47 internal links, 52 external

    The homepage links to 47 pages on apgroup.com and 52 external pages.

4 checks passed
  • Title: 37 characters

    Your title is a healthy 37 characters: “Amorepacific - A More Beautiful World”.

  • Structured data in place

    Structured data found: Organization.

  • robots.txt in place

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

  • XML sitemap found

    Your XML sitemap is reachable at http://www.apgroup.com/int/en/sitemap.xml.

AI search readiness

1 to fix88
  • Organization data is thin (3 of 6 facts)

    Your Organization JSON-LD is missing logo, 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.

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 (797 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.

Other pages

2 to fix88
  • 2 pages share a title

    /int/en and /int/en/index.html all use the title “Amorepacific - A More Beautiful World”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.

  • 15 pages without a meta description

    /int/en/index.html, /int/en/about-us/amorepacific/our-values/our-values.html, /int/en/commitments/sustainability/sustainability.html, /int/en/commitments/sustainability/innovation-index/innovation.html, /int/en/news/2026-10-02-2.html and /int/en/news/2026-10-02-1.html 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 42 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

2 to fixGoogle 7791
  • Deprecated browser APIs

    The page uses 1 deprecated browser API that will stop working in future browsers (“Synchronous `XMLHttpRequest` on the main thread is deprecated because of its detrimental effects to…”).

  • 4 JavaScript errors while loading

    4 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID”.

2 checks passed
  • Tap targets are thumb-sized

    27 of 32 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.

  • Mobile viewport set

    The page declares a mobile viewport.

Security and trust

3 to fix75
  • 1 broken external link

    1 link to other sites is dead, for example https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/BD1EF1E7-6C54-4126-9652-40C47920D613 (503).

  • 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.

  • HTTP/1.1 only

    The server only offers HTTP/1.1, so browsers open several connections and load files more slowly. Most hosts and CDNs turn on HTTP/2 with a setting.

  • 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.

  • 3 redirects before the homepage

    Opening https://apgroup.com goes through 3 redirects before the homepage loads.

  • 1 link through redirect chains

    1 link go through two or more redirects, for example http://instagram.com/Laneige_us/.

  • 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.

3 checks passed
  • Served over HTTPS

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

  • Valid certificate (162 days left)

    The certificate from GlobalSign nv-sa · GlobalSign GCC R46 OV TLS CA 2025 verifies for apgroup.com and is valid for another 162 days.

  • http:// redirects to https

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

Domain and trust

  • No CAA record

    apgroup.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

    apgroup.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 29 years old

    29 years

    apgroup.com was registered in Feb 1997 through Gabia, Inc.. An established domain carries more trust with email providers and search engines.

  • Registered until Feb 2027

    apgroup.com is registered until Feb 2027.

Content and conversion

3 to fix50
  • 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 social proof

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • About 616 words of copy

    The homepage carries about 616 words of visible text.

2 checks passed
  • 22 calls to action

    The homepage has 22 calls to action, for example “Learn More”.

  • Analytics in place

    Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.

Email authentication

2 to fix0
  • No DMARC policy

    apgroup.com 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.

  • No SPF record

    apgroup.com has no SPF record, so mail servers can't tell which servers may send email as you. Your mail lands in spam more often, and anyone can send mail pretending to be you.

  • No DKIM key on the usual selectors

    We found no DKIM key on the selectors the big email providers use. If you send through one of them, turning on DKIM signing improves delivery.

  • Domain receives no email

    apgroup.com has no MX record, so it receives no email. SPF -all and DMARC reject still matter: they stop others sending mail as you.

  • Email authentication score: 0/100

    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.

Privacy and tracking

1 to fix
  • 3 trackers load before any consent

    3

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

  • 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.

  • 6 other companies contacted

    Loading the homepage contacts 6 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.

Upkeep, stack and company

Company

Founded
1945
Headquarters
Seoul

Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info

Go beyond the website

What your $25 Growth Playbook adds

This free review found 49 issues on apgroup.com, including 18 speed issues, 4 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

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