Website review, no card needed
cem.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 31 October 202637 issues · 100 checks
This review found 37 issues worth fixing on cem.com, 9 of them high impact, across 100 checks. The most urgent: render-blocking 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
78C- #39,987 of 81,078 reviewed websitesbeats 45%
- #23,159 of 40,017 online storesbeats 37%
- #149 of 601 Magento storesbeats 71%
Closest competitors among Magento stores
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.7 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 113 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 111 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 119 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 113 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 106 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 107 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 110 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 127 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 137 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 139 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 137 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 103 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 104 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 104 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 105 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
0.4 s
0.8 s
1.1 s
1.5 s
1.9 s
2.3 s
2.6 s
3.0 s
cem.com does not allow embedding, so this is Google's rendering of the page.
Speed
Render-blocking requests
2.6 s12 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 2.6 s.
Mobile performance score: 70
70/100Your mobile performance score is 70. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Minify JavaScript
450 ms · 222 KiB222 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
Improve image delivery
550 ms · 82 KiB2 images could be 82 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 550 ms faster on a phone.
Reduce unused CSS
450 ms · 120 KiBAbout 120 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 450 ms faster on a phone.
7 third-party services on the page
7 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Clarity and Marketo and others), adding 544 KiB and 306 ms of main-thread time.
Reduce unused JavaScript
150 ms · 163 KiBAbout 163 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.
3 long tasks on the main thread
3 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 134 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
11 KiB2 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (11 KiB).
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.
2 checks passed
Main-thread work: 1.8 s
A phone's processor spends 1.8 s on main-thread work while loading, 988 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 4 ms
4 msYour server sent the HTML in 4 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 FCP: 3.0 s
3.0 sReal visitors see the first content after 3.0 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 6.8 s
6.8 sYour largest element takes 6.8 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Liberty PRO Scale-up from development to production. A high…”.
Time to Interactive: 8.5 s
8.5 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 8.5 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Real-user LCP: 3.5 s
3.5 sReal visitors wait 3.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user TTFB: 1.5 s
1.5 sReal visitors wait 1.5 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
First Contentful Paint: 3.0 s
3.0 sThe first text or image appears after 3.0 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Speed Index: 3.8 s
3.8 sVisually, the page fills in at 3.8 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
2 images without width and height
2 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
-7%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 113 ms to 105 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
+2%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.9 s to 2.7 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user INP: 136 ms
136 msReal visitors wait 136 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: 75 ms
75 msScripts block the page for only 75 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.03
0.03The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.03, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
About 0.5 g of CO₂ per visit
0.52 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.52 g of CO₂e: 62.2 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
4 checks passed
Page weight: 1.8 MB in 261 requests
1.8 MBYour homepage downloads 1.8 MB in 261 requests on a phone: scripts 1.0 MB (216), images 461 KiB (14) and fonts 164 KiB (2). That is a lean page.
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
1 tap target too small
1 tap target is too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
2 images without alt text
2 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (2 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Page should contain a level-one heading (1 element)
Page should contain a level-one heading: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
1 form field without a label
1 form field has no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
1 link without text
1 visible link has no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where it goes.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h4, h2 → h4 and h2 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
40 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 46 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 40 passed and 6 failed. 2 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No H1 headline
There is no <h1>, so neither visitors nor Google get a clear main headline.
Title is short (15 characters)
Your title is only 15 characters: “CEM Corporation”. 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 (263 characters)
Your meta description is 263 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.
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 XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://cem.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
5 links with vague text
5 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
152 internal links, 6 external
The homepage links to 152 pages on cem.com and 6 external pages.
2 checks passed
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://cem.com/.
robots.txt in place
robots.txt is in place and points crawlers to your sitemap.
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 /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 (459 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
1 page without a meta description
/animal-feeds has no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
12 pages without an H1
/ash-analysis, /fat-analysis, /hydrolysis, /microwave-digestion, /microwave-synthesis and /moisture-solids-analysis and 6 others have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 62 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.
Titles are unique
Every page we checked has its own title.
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 JavaScript errors while loading
2 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Access to XMLHttpRequest at 'https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v5.7.1/css/all.css?display=swap' from origin 'https:/…”.
Browser-reported issues
Chrome logged issues while loading the page (“Content security policy”).
2 checks passed
Tap targets are thumb-sized
16 of 17 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Security and trust
2 broken links to your own pages
2 links from your homepage to your own site are broken, for example https://cem.com/insitupro/ (404).
1 broken external link
1 link to other sites is dead, for example http://www.twitter.com/CEMCorporation (520).
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.
Deprecated X-XSS-Protection
X-XSS-Protection is set to “1; mode=block”; the header is deprecated and can introduce bugs. Use 0 or remove it.
No security.txt
There is no /.well-known/security.txt telling researchers how to report a security problem to you.
7 checks passed
Served over HTTPS
The homepage is served over HTTPS (cem.com).
Valid certificate (25 days left)
The certificate from GoDaddy.com, Inc. · Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2 verifies for cem.com and is valid for another 25 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:// redirects to https
http://cem.com redirects to the secure version.
HTTP/2
The server speaks HTTP/2, so browsers load many files over one connection.
Domain and trust
No CAA record
cem.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.
3 checks passed
Domain is 29 years old
29 yearscem.com was registered in May 1997 through Network Solutions, LLC. An established domain carries more trust with email providers and search engines.
DNSSEC is on
cem.com's DNS answers are signed (DNSSEC), so they can't be forged on the way to visitors.
Registered until May 2028
cem.com is registered until May 2028.
Content and conversion
Thin social proof
Social proof on the homepage: 1 testimonial or review block. 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 197 words
The homepage has only about 197 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: “Learn More”.
9 calls to action
The homepage has 9 calls to action, for example “Contact”, “Request Quote” and “Learn More”.
2 short forms
2 short forms (4 fields at most) are right on the homepage, asking for an email.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity and Umami.
Email authentication
Email authentication score: 95/100
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.
3 checks passed
DMARC policy: reject
DMARC tells receivers to reject mail that fails authentication, and sends you reports.
SPF in place (~all)
An SPF record lists your sending servers and marks other mail as suspicious (~all): “v=spf1 mx a ip4:108.169.138.162 ip4:130.180.216.90 ip4:195.171.189.146 ip4:195.134.176.5 ip4:223.25.77.88 ip4:113.249.2…”.
DKIM signing found
A DKIM key is published (selector “selector1” and “selector2”), so receivers can verify mail really came from you.
Privacy and tracking
4 trackers load before any consent
4Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Clarity (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.
17 cookies set on arrival
17Opening the homepage sets 17 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.
15 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 15 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
Upkeep, stack and company
No signs of neglect in what was checked: the copyright year, CMS and plugin versions, and jQuery.
Stack
- E-commerce
- Magento
- Analytics
- Google Analytics | Microsoft Clarity
- Hosting
- AWS
Company
- Founded
- 1978
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 37 issues on cem.com, including 14 speed issues, 7 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.