Website review, no card needed
artefact.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 27 October 202636 issues · 82 checks
This review found 36 issues worth fixing on artefact.com, 16 of them high impact, across 82 checks. The most urgent: use efficient cache lifetimes. Your full playbook turns these into prioritised fixes alongside reviews, competitors and channels.
Read the full growth playbook for Artefact
- Homepage
- Phone render
- Links and pages
- Google PageSpeed
Google PageSpeed Insights (opens in a new tab), mobile
Site score
80BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 3.4 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 3.4 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 3.4 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 3.7 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 3.8 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 3.8 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 3.9 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 3.9 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 3.9 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 3.8 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 3.7 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 3.4 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 3.1 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 3.0 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 3.2 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 3.7 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 4.2 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 4.6 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 4.5 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 4.4 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 121 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 116 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 113 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 109 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 101 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 101 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 101 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 99 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 99 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 97 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 104 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 108 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 113 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 117 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 121 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
How it loaded on a phone
0.6 s
1.2 s
1.8 s
2.4 s
2.9 s
3.5 s
4.1 s
4.7 s
Speed
Use efficient cache lifetimes
3.5 s · 9.4 MB40 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (9.4 MB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
1.9 s · 387 KiBAbout 387 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.9 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.3 s12 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.3 s.
Main-thread work: 10.6 s
A phone's processor spends 10.6 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.4 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
Mobile performance score: 49
49/100Your mobile performance score is 49 (desktop: 69). Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
3,271 HTML elements
The page has 3,271 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.
Reduce unused CSS
600 ms · 126 KiBAbout 126 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 600 ms faster on a phone.
14 long tasks on the main thread
14 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 283 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
6 third-party services on the page
6 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Didomi and XiTi and others), adding 440 KiB and 358 ms of main-thread time.
Legacy JavaScript
200 ms · 10 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 10 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 200 ms faster on a phone.
Improve image delivery
150 ms · 58 KiB2 images could be 58 KiB 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.
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.
Minify JavaScript
3 KiB3 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
1 checks passed
Server response: 217 ms
217 msYour server sent the HTML in 217 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.
Real-user LCP: 4.5 s
4.5 sReal visitors wait 4.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 10.8 s
10.8 sYour largest element takes 10.8 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Artefact AI is about people Legrand Savencia Nexans “In sho…”.
Time to Interactive: 11.4 s
11.4 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 11.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 7.3 s
7.3 sVisually, the page fills in at 7.3 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Total Blocking Time: 694 ms
694 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 694 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Largest content (LCP) got 33% slower for real visitors
+33%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 3.4 s to 4.4 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.8 s
2.8 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.8 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 1.7 s
1.7 sReal visitors wait 1.7 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
First Contentful Paint: 2.0 s
2.0 sThe first text or image appears after 2.0 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
1 image without width and height
1 image have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
0%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 121 ms to 121 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
3 checks passed
Real-user INP: 133 ms
133 msReal visitors wait 133 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.06
0.06For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.06 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.038
0.038The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.038, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 10.5 MB in 55 requests
10.5 MBYour homepage downloads 10.5 MB in 55 requests on a phone: media 8.8 MB (6), scripts 909 KiB (20) and images 363 KiB (6). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 3.0 g of CO₂ per visit
2.98 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 2.98 g of CO₂e: 357.9 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
3 checks passed
Images use modern formats
Every sizeable image is WebP, AVIF or SVG.
Images load when needed
Images below the first screen wait until the visitor scrolls to them.
Images are sized for phones
No image is downloaded at more than three times the size it is drawn on a phone.
Accessibility
ARIA commands must have an accessible name (4 elements)
ARIA commands must have an accessible name: 4 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.
1 text element with low contrast
1 text element doesn't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
8 images without alt text
8 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (4 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 4 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
12 links without text
12 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
8 tap targets too small
8 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (10 elements).
1 checks passed
48 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 52 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 48 passed and 4 failed. 3 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
40 links with vague text
40 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://www.artefact.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
1 link crawlers can't follow
1 link has no real href, so search engines can't follow it.
275 internal links, 27 external
The homepage links to 275 pages on artefact.com and 27 external pages.
7 checks passed
Meta description: 151 characters
Your meta description is 151 characters: “Global data and AI consulting company. From strategy to deployment: AI solutions by industry, data platforms, governanc…”.
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “Artefact accelerates AI transformation”.
Title: 51 characters
Your title is a healthy 51 characters: “Artefact is a global data and AI consulting company”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.artefact.com/.
Structured data in place
Structured data found: Article, ImageObject, Organization, Person and WebPage.
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.
AI search readiness
Organization data is thin (3 of 6 facts)
Your Organization JSON-LD is missing url, 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.
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 (2,305 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
4 pages share 2 titles
https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services and https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services-and-private-equity all use the title “Data & AI for Financial Services and Private Equity - Artefact”, and 1 other title repeat too. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
4 pages share a meta description
https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services and https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services-and-private-equity use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
2 links to non-canonical URLs
Your homepage links to 2 pages by a URL that isn't their canonical one, for example https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services, whose canonical is https://www.artefact.com/industries/data-ai-for-financial-services-and-private-equity. Linking straight to the canonical URL saves crawlers a detour and keeps ranking signals on one address.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 154 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.
Every page has a meta description
All 15 pages that loaded have a meta description.
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
6 small tap targets
6 of 30 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
3 JavaScript errors while loading
3 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_FAILED”.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
1 checks passed
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Content and conversion
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 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 1,972 words of copy
The homepage carries about 1,972 words of visible text.
5 checks passed
Clear next step on the first screen
On a phone, the first screen shows a clear next step: “Learn More →” and “Contact us”.
12 calls to action
The homepage has 12 calls to action, for example “Contact us”, “Contact” and “Download the Survey”.
2 short forms
2 short forms (1 field at most) are right on the homepage.
Social proof on the page
Social proof on the homepage: 47 customer or partner logos, 1 trust badge and “0 + clients”.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.
Privacy and tracking
2 trackers load before any consent
2Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads and Google Tag Manager (measured from a US location before any click). A consent tool (Didomi) is installed; check it blocks these until visitors agree where the law requires it.
4 cookies set on arrival
4Opening the homepage sets 4 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).
7 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 7 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
1 checks passed
Consent tool: Didomi
A consent management tool (Didomi) loads with the page.
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 artefact.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- OVHcloud
Hiring
- Hiring
- 149 open roles
- Teams
- Data Engineering (30), Data Consulting (28), Data Science (28), Consulting & Data (8)
- Job board
- greenhouse
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 36 issues on artefact.com, including 19 speed issues, 3 SEO issues and 1 conversion gap. 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.