Website review, no card needed
common.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 7 November 202641 issues · 99 checks
This review found 41 issues worth fixing on common.com, 20 of them high impact, across 99 checks. The most urgent: reduce unused JavaScript. 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
69DClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 4.4 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 4.5 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 4.4 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 4.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 4.7 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 4.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 4.7 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 4.5 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 4.3 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 4.3 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 4.3 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 4.2 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 3.9 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 3.8 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 3.6 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 3.6 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 3.6 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 3.7 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 3.7 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 3.6 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 3.6 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 3.4 s |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 3.3 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 81 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 81 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 81 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 84 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 84 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 94 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 103 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 115 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 123 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 124 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 122 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 124 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 126 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 124 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 122 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 127 ms |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 130 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
Speed
Reduce unused JavaScript
3.7 s · 536 KiBAbout 536 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 3.7 s faster on a phone.
Reduce unused CSS
1.3 s · 285 KiBAbout 285 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.3 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.4 s5 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.4 s.
Minify CSS
1.1 s · 200 KiB200 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.
Mobile performance score: 42
42/100Your mobile performance score is 42. Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
6 third-party services on the page
6 third-party services load with your homepage (Google CDN, Google Tag Manager and JSDelivr CDN and others), adding 1.1 MB and 1.1 s of main-thread time.
Google CDN adds 648 ms
648 msGoogle CDN costs a phone 648 ms of main-thread work and 736 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.
Google Tag Manager adds 334 ms
334 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 334 ms of main-thread work and 296 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 251 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Main-thread work: 2.5 s
A phone's processor spends 2.5 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.4 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
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.
Minify JavaScript
3 KiB3 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
1 checks passed
Server response: 3 ms
3 msYour server sent the HTML in 3 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: 3.8 s
3.8 sReal visitors see the first content after 3.8 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 2.7 s
2.7 sReal visitors wait 2.7 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
First Contentful Paint: 7.4 s
7.4 sThe first text or image appears after 7.4 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 7.4 s
7.4 sYour largest element takes 7.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Common.com”.
Time to Interactive: 11.3 s
11.3 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 11.3 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 7.4 s
7.4 sVisually, the page fills in at 7.4 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Total Blocking Time: 696 ms
696 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 696 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user LCP: 3.8 s
3.8 sReal visitors wait 3.8 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Tap response (INP) got 59% slower for real visitors
+59%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 81 ms to 130 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user INP: 105 ms
105 msReal visitors wait 105 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.
Largest content (LCP) got 25% faster for real visitors
-25%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 4.4 s to 3.3 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
About 0.5 g of CO₂ per visit
0.53 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.53 g of CO₂e: 63.2 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: 1.9 MB in 32 requests
1.9 MBYour homepage downloads 1.9 MB in 32 requests on a phone: scripts 1.1 MB (17), other files 353 KiB (3) and stylesheets 292 KiB (4). 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 text element with low contrast
1 text element doesn't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
Malformed lists
Some lists contain elements other than list items, which screen readers announce wrongly.
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.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (1 element)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
The skip-link target should exist and be focusable (1 element)
The skip-link target should exist and be focusable: 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.
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 1 image in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
33 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 38 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 33 passed and 5 failed. 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.
18 internal links, 2 external
The homepage links to 18 pages on common.com and 2 external pages.
7 checks passed
Meta description: 104 characters
Your meta description is 104 characters: “Available for acquisition through Hilco Digital Assets. Serious inquiries only: domainnames@hilcoglobal.”.
Title: 33 characters
Your title is a healthy 33 characters: “Common.com - Hilco Digital Assets”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://hilcodigital.com/common/.
Structured data in place
Structured data found: WebPage and WebSite.
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://hilcodigital.com/sitemap.xml.
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.
1 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.
Other pages
1 page without a meta description
/thoughts has no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
2 pages share a meta description
/ and /domains use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
3 pages without an H1
/, /about and /contact have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
2 pages with very little text
/hdtv and /contact have under 150 words in the HTML. Thin pages rarely rank; if the text loads with JavaScript, crawlers that don't run it see even less.
7 internal pages checked
We fetched 7 pages linked from your homepage and read each the way a search engine does.
5 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 7 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 7 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
2 small tap targets
2 of 5 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
2 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Security and trust
1 broken link to your own pages
1 link from your homepage to your own site is broken, for example https://hilcodigital.com/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection (404).
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.
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.
1 link through redirect chains
1 link go through two or more redirects, for example https://ipv4.global/.
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.
4 checks passed
Served over HTTPS
The homepage is served over HTTPS (hilcodigital.com).
Valid certificate (61 days left)
The certificate from Google Trust Services · WE1 verifies for common.com and is valid for another 61 days.
http:// redirects to https
http://common.com redirects to the secure version.
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
The server speaks HTTP/2 and advertises HTTP/3, so browsers load many files over one connection.
Domain and trust
No CAA record
hilcodigital.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
hilcodigital.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 5 years old
5 yearshilcodigital.com was registered in Oct 2021 through GoDaddy.com, LLC. An established domain carries more trust with email providers and search engines.
Registered until Oct 2027
hilcodigital.com is registered until Oct 2027.
Content and conversion
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.
Only about 43 words
The homepage has only about 43 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.
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.
2 checks passed
4 calls to action
The homepage has 4 calls to action, for example “Contact” and “Contact Us”.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.
Email authentication
No SPF record
common.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
common.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: 50/100
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.
1 checks passed
DMARC policy: reject
DMARC tells receivers to reject mail that fails authentication, and sends you reports.
Privacy and tracking
2 trackers load before any consent
2Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads 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.
3 cookies set on arrival
3Opening the homepage sets 3 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
- 1 plugin is behind its latest release.gtm-kit 2.23.0 → 2.23.1
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- AWS
Company
- Founded
- 2015
- Headquarters
- New York City
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 41 issues on common.com, including 20 speed issues, 1 SEO issue and 4 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.