jivochat.com website review

Your mobile performance score is 39 (desktop: 75). Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.

A phone's processor spends 7.7 s on main-thread work while loading, 4.5 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.

8 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Facebook and Google/Doubleclick Ads and others), adding 1.3 MB and 1.6 s of main-thread time.

About 421 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 750 ms faster on a phone.

14 images could be 1.1 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.

Google Tag Manager costs a phone 599 ms of main-thread work and 330 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.

20 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 556 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

12 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (363 KiB).

4 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 350 ms.

Facebook costs a phone 282 ms of main-thread work and 211 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/Doubleclick Ads costs a phone 259 ms of main-thread work and 257 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.

Jivochat costs a phone 181 ms of main-thread work and 380 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.

Polyfills for old browsers add 34 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 200 ms faster on a phone.

About 36 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page.

Desktop scores 75 but mobile only 39. A gap that wide usually means heavy scripts and images that hit phones hardest.

Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.

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.

Your largest element takes 8.5 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “All-in-one solution for customer service”. Most of its time is element render delay (3.4 s).

The page becomes fully interactive after 19.8 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

Scripts block taps and scrolling for 2.1 s in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.

Visually, the page fills in at 8.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

Real visitors wait 2.6 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

Real visitors wait 313 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

Real visitors see the first content after 2.6 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

Real visitors wait 1.8 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 282 ms to 263 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.3 s to 2.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

Your homepage downloads 4.7 MB in 124 requests on a phone: images 2.1 MB (45), scripts 1.5 MB (37) and media 794 KiB (1). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.

6 images further down the page (879 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.

By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.33 g of CO₂e: 160.2 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

6 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.

11 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.

The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.

All page content should be contained by landmarks: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

8 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.

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

6 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.

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

The homepage links to 96 pages on jivochat.com and 20 external pages.

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.

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.

/integrations has no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.

We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 32 found) and read each the way a search engine does.

7 of 18 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.

6 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_FAILED”.

3 images are displayed at the wrong aspect ratio, so they look stretched or squashed.

Chrome logged issues while loading the page (“Content security policy”).

X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff is missing, so browsers may guess file types.

No Referrer-Policy header, so full URLs can leak to the sites you link to.

No Permissions-Policy header to switch off camera, microphone and location for embedded content.

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

jivochat.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.

jivochat.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.

No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.

No guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card) is mentioned, which is often what tips a hesitant visitor.

The homepage carries about 908 words of visible text.

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.

Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight and Meta Pixel (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.

Opening the homepage sets 5 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).

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.

Loading the homepage contacts 19 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.