Website review, no card needed

cem.com logo

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.

  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
3.0 s2.4 sMay 9Oct 242.7 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
May 9, 20262.9 s
May 16, 20262.6 s
May 23, 20262.4 s
May 30, 20262.4 s
Jun 6, 20262.5 s
Jun 13, 20262.8 s
Jun 20, 20262.8 s
Jun 27, 20262.9 s
Jul 4, 20262.9 s
Jul 11, 20262.9 s
Jul 18, 20262.9 s
Jul 25, 20262.8 s
Aug 1, 20262.7 s
Aug 8, 20262.7 s
Aug 15, 20262.6 s
Aug 22, 20262.6 s
Aug 29, 20262.6 s
Sep 5, 20262.5 s
Sep 12, 20262.7 s
Sep 19, 20262.6 s
Sep 26, 20262.8 s
Oct 3, 20262.8 s
Oct 10, 20262.8 s
Oct 17, 20262.8 s
Oct 24, 20262.7 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
145 ms96 msMay 9Oct 24105 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
May 9, 2026113 ms
May 16, 2026111 ms
May 23, 2026119 ms
May 30, 2026120 ms
Jun 6, 2026116 ms
Jun 13, 2026118 ms
Jun 20, 2026112 ms
Jun 27, 2026111 ms
Jul 4, 2026112 ms
Jul 11, 2026113 ms
Jul 18, 2026112 ms
Jul 25, 2026112 ms
Aug 1, 2026106 ms
Aug 8, 2026107 ms
Aug 15, 2026110 ms
Aug 22, 2026127 ms
Aug 29, 2026137 ms
Sep 5, 2026139 ms
Sep 12, 2026137 ms
Sep 19, 2026103 ms
Sep 26, 2026104 ms
Oct 3, 2026102 ms
Oct 10, 2026102 ms
Oct 17, 2026104 ms
Oct 24, 2026105 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 cem.com (phone) rendered by Google PageSpeed Insights

How it loaded on a phone

  1. cem.com at 0.4 s0.4 s
  2. cem.com at 0.8 s0.8 s
  3. cem.com at 1.1 s1.1 s
  4. cem.com at 1.5 s1.5 s
  5. cem.com at 1.9 s1.9 s
  6. cem.com at 2.3 s2.3 s
  7. cem.com at 2.6 s2.6 s
  8. cem.com at 3.0 s3.0 s

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

Speed

5 to fix70
  • Render-blocking requests

    2.6 s

    12 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 2.6 s.

  • Mobile performance score: 70

    70/100

    Your mobile performance score is 70. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.

  • Minify JavaScript

    450 ms · 222 KiB

    222 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.

  • Improve image delivery

    550 ms · 82 KiB

    2 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 KiB

    About 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 KiB

    About 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 KiB

    2 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 ms

    Your server sent the HTML in 4 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.

Core Web Vitals

9 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 FCP: 3.0 s

    3.0 s

    Real 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 s

    Your 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 s

    The page becomes fully interactive after 8.5 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

  • Real-user LCP: 3.5 s

    3.5 s

    Real 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 s

    Real 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 s

    The 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 s

    Visually, 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 ms

    Real visitors wait 136 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

  • Real-user CLS: 0.00

    0.00

    For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.

  • Total Blocking Time: 75 ms

    75 ms

    Scripts block the page for only 75 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.03

    0.03

    The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.03, good is under 0.1).

Images and page weight

100
  • About 0.5 g of CO₂ per visit

    0.52 g

    By 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 MB

    Your 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

6 to fixGoogle 8791
  • 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

7 to fixGoogle 8566
  • 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

1 to fix88
  • 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

2 to fix90
  • 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

1 to fixGoogle 9293
  • 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 to fix83
  • 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 years

    cem.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

3 to fix79
  • 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

95
  • 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

1 to fix
  • 4 trackers load before any consent

    4

    Before 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

    17

    Opening 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

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