Website review, no card needed

bing.com logo

bing.com website review

Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 9 October 202624 issues · 70 checks

This review found 24 issues worth fixing on bing.com, 5 of them high impact, across 70 checks. The most urgent: reduce unused JavaScript. 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
1.4 s1.3 sApr 18Oct 31.3 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
Apr 18, 20261.4 s
Apr 25, 20261.4 s
May 2, 20261.4 s
May 9, 20261.4 s
May 16, 20261.4 s
May 23, 20261.4 s
May 30, 20261.4 s
Jun 6, 20261.4 s
Jun 13, 20261.4 s
Jun 20, 20261.4 s
Jun 27, 20261.4 s
Jul 4, 20261.3 s
Jul 11, 20261.3 s
Jul 18, 20261.4 s
Jul 25, 20261.4 s
Aug 1, 20261.4 s
Aug 8, 20261.4 s
Aug 15, 20261.4 s
Aug 22, 20261.4 s
Aug 29, 20261.4 s
Sep 5, 20261.4 s
Sep 12, 20261.3 s
Sep 19, 20261.3 s
Sep 26, 20261.3 s
Oct 3, 20261.3 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
158 ms134 msApr 18Oct 3138 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
Apr 18, 2026155 ms
Apr 25, 2026154 ms
May 2, 2026153 ms
May 9, 2026151 ms
May 16, 2026150 ms
May 23, 2026149 ms
May 30, 2026147 ms
Jun 6, 2026145 ms
Jun 13, 2026142 ms
Jun 20, 2026140 ms
Jun 27, 2026139 ms
Jul 4, 2026138 ms
Jul 11, 2026138 ms
Jul 18, 2026138 ms
Jul 25, 2026138 ms
Aug 1, 2026138 ms
Aug 8, 2026138 ms
Aug 15, 2026137 ms
Aug 22, 2026137 ms
Aug 29, 2026137 ms
Sep 5, 2026137 ms
Sep 12, 2026138 ms
Sep 19, 2026138 ms
Sep 26, 2026138 ms
Oct 3, 2026138 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

Full-page screenshot of bing.com (desktop) rendered by Google PageSpeed Insights

How it loaded on a phone

  1. bing.com at 0.4 s0.4 s
  2. bing.com at 0.9 s0.9 s
  3. bing.com at 1.3 s1.3 s
  4. bing.com at 1.8 s1.8 s
  5. bing.com at 2.2 s2.2 s
  6. bing.com at 2.7 s2.7 s
  7. bing.com at 3.1 s3.1 s
  8. bing.com at 3.5 s3.5 s

bing.com does not allow embedding, so this is Google's rendering of the page.

Speed

3 to fix73
  • Reduce unused JavaScript

    1.6 s · 197 KiB

    About 197 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.6 s faster on a phone.

  • Mobile performance score: 73

    73/100

    Your mobile performance score is 73 (desktop: 62). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.

  • Render-blocking requests

    400 ms

    1 file blocks the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining it could save about 400 ms.

  • Improve image delivery

    226 KiB

    20 images could be 226 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.

  • 6 long tasks on the main thread

    6 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 157 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

  • Use efficient cache lifetimes

    21 KiB

    11 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (21 KiB).

  • Reduce unused CSS

    21 KiB

    About 21 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page.

  • 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.

  • 1 third-party service on the page

    1 third-party service load with your homepage (live.com), adding 4 KiB and 2 ms of main-thread time.

3 checks passed
  • Main-thread work: 1.7 s

    A phone's processor spends 1.7 s on main-thread work while loading, 712 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.

  • Page weight: 1.3 MB in 90 requests

    1.3 MB

    Your homepage downloads 1.3 MB in 90 requests on a phone: images 472 KiB (26), other files 407 KiB (33) and scripts 394 KiB (24). That is a lean page.

  • Server response: 118 ms

    118 ms

    Your server sent the HTML in 118 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.

Core Web Vitals

7 to fix100
  • 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: 5.6 s

    5.6 s

    Your largest element takes 5.6 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image “© Joe Raedle/Getty Images”.

  • Real-user TTFB: 806 ms

    806 ms

    Real visitors wait 806 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

  • Time to Interactive: 6.4 s

    6.4 s

    The page becomes fully interactive after 6.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

  • 20 images without width and height

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

  • Speed Index: 3.8 s

    3.8 s

    Visually, the page fills in at 3.8 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.102

    0.102

    The layout shifts by 0.102 while loading, so content jumps under the reader's thumb. Good is under 0.1.

  • Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors

    -7%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-03, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.4 s to 1.3 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

7 checks passed
  • Real-user LCP: 1.9 s

    1.9 s

    Real visitors wait 1.9 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

  • Real-user INP: 161 ms

    161 ms

    Real visitors wait 161 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

  • Real-user CLS: 0.09

    0.09

    For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.09 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.

  • Real-user FCP: 1.3 s

    1.3 s

    Real visitors see the first content after 1.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

  • Tap response (INP) got 11% faster for real visitors

    -11%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-03, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 155 ms to 138 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

  • Total Blocking Time: 156 ms

    156 ms

    Scripts block the page for only 156 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.

  • First Contentful Paint: 1.3 s

    1.3 s

    The first text or image appears after 1.3 s, inside the 1.8 s “good” threshold.

Accessibility

100
  • Headings skip levels

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

1 checks passed
  • Every image has alt text

    All 2 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.

SEO

5 to fixGoogle 9277
  • Title is short (23 characters)

    Your title is only 23 characters: “Search - Microsoft Bing”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.

  • No structured data

    No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.

  • Meta description is long (168 characters)

    Your meta description is 168 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.

  • 1 link crawlers can't follow

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

  • One H1 headline

    Your <h1> is empty.

  • No X (Twitter) card tag

    No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is set, so this is minor.

  • 20 internal links, 20 external

    The homepage links to 20 pages on bing.com and 20 external pages.

4 checks passed
  • Canonical URL set

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

  • 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.bing.com/sitemap.xml.

Best practices

1 to fixGoogle 9692
  • 1 JavaScript error while loading

    1 error was logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “_w is not defined”.

  • Missing source maps

    Large scripts ship without source maps.

1 checks passed
  • Mobile viewport set

    The page declares a mobile viewport.

Security and trust

2 to fix88
  • http:// does not redirect

    http://bing.com does not redirect to https, so some visitors land on the insecure version.

  • 5 broken external links

    5 links to other sites are dead, for example https://www.msn.com/?ocid=BHEA000 (404).

  • 8 links through redirect chains

    8 links go through two or more redirects, for example https://www.bing.com/chat?FORM=hpcodx&intent=bing.

  • 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 security.txt

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

6 checks passed
  • Served over HTTPS

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

  • Valid certificate (175 days left)

    The certificate from Microsoft Corporation · Microsoft TLS G2 ECC CA OCSP 02 verifies for bing.com and is valid for another 175 days.

  • Protected from clickjacking

    X-Frame-Options or a frame-ancestors policy stops other sites framing yours.

  • Content-Security-Policy set

    A Content-Security-Policy is set, the main browser-side defence against injected scripts.

  • HSTS enabled

    Strict-Transport-Security is set, so browsers always use https.

  • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3

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

Content and conversion

5 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 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 3 words

    The homepage has only about 3 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.

2 checks passed
  • 1 call to action

    The homepage has 1 call to action, for example “Learn more”.

  • 1 short form

    A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage.

Email authentication

1 to fix90
  • 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.

  • Email authentication score: 90/100

    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.

2 checks passed
  • DMARC policy: reject

    DMARC tells receivers to reject mail that fails authentication, and sends you reports.

  • SPF with a strict ending (-all)

    An SPF record lists your sending servers and tells receivers to reject anything else: “v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all”.

Privacy and tracking

  • 12 cookies set on arrival

    12

    Opening the homepage sets 12 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 free review found 24 issues on bing.com, including 10 speed issues, 5 SEO issues and 5 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