Website review, no card needed
lgcstandards.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 26 October 202636 issues · 75 checks
This review found 36 issues worth fixing on lgcstandards.com, 13 of them high impact, across 75 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
75CClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.5 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 252 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 253 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 247 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 245 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 246 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 248 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 251 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 256 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 255 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 263 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 265 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 256 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 257 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 254 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 252 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 256 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 266 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 263 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 263 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 269 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 261 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 258 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 255 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 241 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 234 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
0.8 s
1.5 s
2.3 s
3.1 s
3.9 s
4.6 s
5.4 s
6.2 s
Speed
Reduce unused JavaScript
2.4 s · 739 KiBAbout 739 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.4 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.4 s6 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.4 s.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
1.1 s · 325 KiB27 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (325 KiB).
Mobile performance score: 45
45/100Your mobile performance score is 45 (desktop: 63). Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Olark and awswaf.com and others), adding 1.7 MB and 934 ms of main-thread time.
Reduce unused CSS
600 ms · 74 KiBAbout 74 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 600 ms faster on a phone.
Google Tag Manager adds 472 ms
472 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 472 ms of main-thread work and 700 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.
Improve image delivery
300 ms · 142 KiB6 images could be 142 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.
Olark adds 233 ms
233 msOlark costs a phone 233 ms of main-thread work and 474 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.
Main-thread work: 2.5 s
A phone's processor spends 2.5 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.6 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
2,269 HTML elements
The page has 2,269 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.
awswaf.com adds 116 ms
116 msawswaf.com costs a phone 116 ms of main-thread work and 308 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.
Legacy JavaScript
200 ms · 36 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 36 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 200 ms faster on a phone.
15 long tasks on the main thread
15 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 216 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Font display
50 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 50 ms).
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 checks passed
Server response: 85 ms
85 msYour server sent the HTML in 85 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.
Largest Contentful Paint: 13.4 s
13.4 sYour largest element takes 13.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image.
Time to Interactive: 17.6 s
17.6 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 17.6 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 8.7 s
8.7 sVisually, the page fills in at 8.7 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
First Contentful Paint: 3.1 s
3.1 sThe first text or image appears after 3.1 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Total Blocking Time: 639 ms
639 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 639 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user INP: 253 ms
253 msReal visitors wait 253 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user TTFB: 1.2 s
1.2 sReal visitors wait 1.2 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
8 images without width and height
8 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
-6%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 252 ms to 234 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
-9%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.8 s to 2.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user LCP: 2.4 s
2.4 sReal visitors wait 2.4 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user CLS: 0.04
0.04For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.04 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user FCP: 1.8 s
1.8 sReal visitors see the first content after 1.8 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.033
0.033The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.033, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 2.8 MB in 89 requests
2.8 MBYour homepage downloads 2.8 MB in 89 requests on a phone: scripts 1.9 MB (29), images 633 KiB (25) and fonts 114 KiB (6). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 0.8 g of CO₂ per visit
0.81 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.81 g of CO₂e: 96.7 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
9 images without alt text
9 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (3 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
No main landmark
The page has no <main> landmark, so screen-reader users cannot jump straight to the content.
2 tap targets too small
2 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
Alternative text of images should not be repeated as text (1 element)
Alternative text of images should not be repeated as text: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated minor by axe-core.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h5), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
24 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 27 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 24 passed and 3 failed. 1 more need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
8 H1 headlines
There are 8 <h1> headlines (“Don't let this offer fade away”, “Discover what’s new” and “New PFAS brochure”). One clear main headline is easier for people and search engines.
Structured data has 1 problem
Structured data found (BreadcrumbList, Organization, SiteNavigationElement and WebSite) but with 1 problem, for example “Organization: missing name”.
1 link crawlers can't follow
1 link has no real href, so search engines can't follow it.
1 link with vague text
1 link use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind it.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is set, so this is minor.
516 internal links, 39 external
The homepage links to 516 pages on lgcstandards.com and 39 external pages.
6 checks passed
Meta description: 158 characters
Your meta description is 158 characters: “Leading global producer of reference materials & proficiency testing schemes. Over 100,000 reference material products …”.
Title: 55 characters
Your title is a healthy 55 characters: “LGC Standards: Reference Materials, Standards & Testing”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.lgcstandards.com/US/en.
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.lgcstandards.com/GB/en/sitemap.xml.
AI search readiness
3 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.
Organization data: 4 of 6 facts
Your Organization JSON-LD gives url, logo, sameAs (social profiles) and contact details; name and description would complete it.
llms.txt published
The site publishes https://www.lgcstandards.com/llms.txt (3 KiB, 16 links), a plain-text guide to the site for AI tools.
Other pages
15 linked pages are broken
Your homepage links to https://www.lgcstandards.com/About-LGC-Standards, https://www.lgcstandards.com/ourquality, https://www.lgcstandards.com/Resources, https://www.lgcstandards.com/New-Product-Releases, https://www.lgcstandards.com/support and https://www.lgcstandards.com/contact-us and 9 others, which answer with an error. Visitors hit a dead end and search engines drop them.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 182 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
Best practices
1 third-party cookie
1 third-party cookie is set on load; browsers are restricting these, so whatever relies on them breaks.
2 JavaScript errors while loading
2 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 405 ()”.
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
Browser-reported issues
Chrome logged issues while loading the page (“Cookie”).
1 checks passed
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
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.
Only about 44 words
The homepage has only about 44 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.
Phone number is not tap-to-call
Your phone number appears as text but isn't a tel: link, so phone visitors can't tap to call.
5 checks passed
25 calls to action
The homepage has 25 calls to action, for example “Contact us”, “Quick Order” and “Login / Register”.
3 short forms
3 short forms (0 fields at most) are right on the homepage.
Social proof on the page
Social proof on the homepage: 6 testimonial or review blocks and 2 trust badges.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.
Risk reducer mentioned
A guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card or similar) is mentioned on the page.
Privacy and tracking
6 cookies set on arrival
6Opening the homepage sets 6 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.
4 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 4 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
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).
Security, domain, email and software versions
The security, domain and email checks, software and plugin versions, and any app with a known security problem are visible only to people at lgcstandards.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Hosting
- AWS
Company
- Founded
- 1842
- Headquarters
- Łomianki
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 36 issues on lgcstandards.com, including 21 speed issues, 4 SEO issues and 2 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.