Programmable

Website review, no card needed

magpharm.com logo

magpharm.com website review

Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 1 November 202632 issues · 69 checks

This review found 32 issues worth fixing on magpharm.com, 11 of them high impact, across 69 checks. The most urgent: fails Core Web Vitals for real visitors. 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

Site score

68D

Closest competitors among reviewed websites

Compare side by side
Real-visitor load time (LCP)75th percentile, phones
5.8 s4.3 sMay 9Oct 245.5 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
May 9, 20264.6 s
May 16, 20265.1 s
May 23, 20265.2 s
May 30, 20265.2 s
Jun 6, 20264.9 s
Jun 13, 20264.7 s
Jun 20, 20264.5 s
Jun 27, 20264.7 s
Jul 4, 20265.0 s
Jul 11, 20265.3 s
Jul 18, 20265.6 s
Jul 25, 20265.6 s
Aug 1, 20265.6 s
Aug 8, 20265.3 s
Aug 15, 20265.5 s
Aug 22, 20265.4 s
Aug 29, 20265.4 s
Sep 5, 20265.6 s
Sep 12, 20265.4 s
Sep 19, 20265.5 s
Sep 26, 20265.5 s
Oct 3, 20265.6 s
Oct 10, 20265.6 s
Oct 17, 20265.6 s
Oct 24, 20265.5 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
248 ms214 msMay 9Oct 24227 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
May 9, 2026226 ms
May 16, 2026244 ms
May 23, 2026228 ms
May 30, 2026220 ms
Jun 6, 2026239 ms
Jun 13, 2026218 ms
Jun 20, 2026218 ms
Jun 27, 2026219 ms
Jul 4, 2026218 ms
Jul 11, 2026224 ms
Jul 18, 2026227 ms
Jul 25, 2026229 ms
Aug 1, 2026222 ms
Aug 8, 2026228 ms
Aug 15, 2026230 ms
Aug 22, 2026228 ms
Aug 29, 2026228 ms
Sep 5, 2026220 ms
Sep 12, 2026224 ms
Sep 19, 2026222 ms
Sep 26, 2026221 ms
Oct 3, 2026230 ms
Oct 10, 2026229 ms
Oct 17, 2026232 ms
Oct 24, 2026227 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

magpharm.com (opens in a new tab)
Full-page screenshot of magpharm.com (phone) rendered by Google PageSpeed Insights

How it loaded on a phone

  1. magpharm.com at 1.4 s1.4 s
  2. magpharm.com at 2.9 s2.9 s
  3. magpharm.com at 4.3 s4.3 s
  4. magpharm.com at 5.7 s5.7 s
  5. magpharm.com at 7.1 s7.1 s
  6. magpharm.com at 8.6 s8.6 s
  7. magpharm.com at 10.0 s10.0 s
  8. magpharm.com at 11.4 s11.4 s

Speed

4 to fix70

  • Improve image delivery

    450 ms · 715 KiB

    8 images could be 715 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 450 ms faster on a phone.

  • Mobile performance score: 70

    70/100

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

  • Render-blocking requests

    400 ms

    4 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 400 ms.

  • Reduce unused JavaScript

    300 ms · 59 KiB

    About 59 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.

  • Legacy JavaScript

    12 KiB

    Polyfills for old browsers add 12 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.

2 checks passed

  • Main-thread work: 0.8 s

    A phone's processor spends 0.8 s on main-thread work while loading, 10 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.

  • Server response: 404 ms

    404 ms

    Your server sent the HTML in 404 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.

Core Web Vitals

9 to fix0

  • 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 LCP: 5.5 s

    5.5 s

    Real visitors wait 5.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

  • Real-user CLS: 0.41

    0.41

    For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.41 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.

  • Real-user FCP: 3.3 s

    3.3 s

    Real visitors see the first content after 3.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

  • Speed Index: 16.4 s

    16.4 s

    Visually, the page fills in at 16.4 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

  • Largest Contentful Paint: 5.3 s

    5.3 s

    Your largest element takes 5.3 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “FR AR”. Most of its time is resource load delay (11.0 s).

  • Real-user INP: 227 ms

    227 ms

    Real visitors wait 227 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

  • Real-user TTFB: 1.8 s

    1.8 s

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

  • Time to Interactive: 5.3 s

    5.3 s

    The page becomes fully interactive after 5.3 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

  • Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors

    -2%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 226 ms to 227 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

  • Largest content (LCP) got 15% slower for real visitors

    +15%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 4.6 s to 5.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

3 checks passed

  • First Contentful Paint: 1.1 s

    1.1 s

    The first text or image appears after 1.1 s, inside the 1.8 s “good” threshold.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0

    0

    The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).

  • Total Blocking Time: 0 ms

    0 ms

    Scripts block the page for only 0 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.

Images and page weight

3 to fix65

  • 2 images over 500 KB

    2 images weigh 1.1 MB together. On a phone connection a single image that size takes seconds.

  • 6 images in older formats

    6 images (1.5 MB) are JPEG, PNG or GIF. The same pictures as WebP or AVIF are usually much smaller at the same quality, and every current browser shows them.

  • 4 images far larger than shown

    57 KiB

    4 images are downloaded at several times the size a phone draws them, for example herozonebg0-min.92cadc04.jpg at 1,366 px wide, shown at 390 px. Resized copies would save about 57 KiB.

  • About 0.4 g of CO₂ per visit

    0.36 g

    By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.36 g of CO₂e: 42.7 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

2 checks passed

  • Page weight: 1.3 MB in 49 requests

    1.3 MB

    Your homepage downloads 1.3 MB in 49 requests on a phone: images 966 KiB (25), scripts 143 KiB (16) and fonts 105 KiB (3). That is a lean page.

  • Images load when needed

    Images below the first screen wait until the visitor scrolls to them.

Accessibility

4 to fixGoogle 9193

  • 5 text elements with low contrast

    5 text elements don'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.

  • All page content should be contained by landmarks (17 elements)

    All page content should be contained by landmarks: 17 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

  • 2 form fields without a label

    2 form fields have no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.

2 checks passed

  • Every image has alt text

    All 67 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.

  • 37 automated accessibility rules passed

    axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 40 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 37 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

5 to fixGoogle 10077

  • No H1 headline

    There is no <h1>, so neither visitors nor Google get a clear main headline.

  • Canonical points to another host

    Your canonical URL points to dashboard.magpharm.com, not magpharm.com, so Google may credit that host instead.

  • Structured data has 1 problem

    Structured data found (BreadcrumbList, Organization, WebPage and WebSite) but with 1 problem, for example “Organization: url points at a different host (https://dashboard.magpharm.com/)”.

  • No XML sitemap

    No XML sitemap at https://magpharm.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.

  • No favicon declared

    No favicon is declared in the HTML, so browser tabs and Google's mobile results may show a generic icon.

  • 33 internal links, 9 external

    The homepage links to 33 pages on magpharm.com and 9 external pages.

4 checks passed

  • Meta description: 112 characters

    Your meta description is 112 characters: “Consultez le site de Magpharm, le laboratoire pharmaceutique N°1 de la parapharmacie en Algérie. En savoir plus.”.

  • Title: 64 characters

    Your title is a healthy 64 characters: “Laboratoires Magpharm, leader des produits de santé et bien-être”.

  • 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.

AI search readiness

1 to fix88

  • Organization data is thin (3 of 6 facts)

    Your Organization JSON-LD is missing sameAs (social profiles), description and contact details. These are the facts AI assistants use to describe a business and to tell it apart from others with a similar name.

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 (474 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.

Other pages

3 to fix86

  • 2 pages share a title

    https://magpharm.com/marques/phytencia and https://magpharm.com/marques/biarel all use the title “Les marques de Magpharm | Leaders en parapharmacie et dermo-cosmétique”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.

  • 4 pages share a meta description

    https://magpharm.com/ou-acheter and https://magpharm.com/marques use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.

  • 13 pages without an H1

    https://magpharm.com/ou-acheter, https://magpharm.com/produits, https://magpharm.com/developpement-durable, https://magpharm.com/marques/phytencia, https://magpharm.com/marques/biarel and https://magpharm.com/marques/fillmed and 7 others have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.

  • 10 pages slow to respond

    https://magpharm.com/ou-acheter, https://magpharm.com/produits, https://magpharm.com/marques/phytencia, https://magpharm.com/marques/biarel, https://magpharm.com/marques/fillmed and https://magpharm.com/marques/lca-pharma and 4 others took over 3 s to send their HTML from our server.

  • 15 internal pages checked

    We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 26 found) and read each the way a search engine does.

5 checks passed

  • Linked pages load

    13 pages of 15 loaded without an error (the rest turned automated requests away).

  • Canonical URLs point to themselves

    No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.

  • Every page has a meta description

    All 13 pages that loaded have a meta description.

  • No linked page is hidden from search

    None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.

  • Every page has a title

    All 13 pages that loaded have a <title>.

Best practices

Google 96100
3 checks passed

  • No console errors

    No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.

  • Tap targets are thumb-sized

    7 of 7 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.

  • Mobile viewport set

    The page declares a mobile viewport.

Content and conversion

3 to fix67

  • 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.

  • Thin social proof

    Social proof on the homepage: 1 trust badge. Pairing it with named testimonials or customer logos makes it far more convincing.

  • No analytics detected

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

  • 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.

  • About 469 words of copy

    The homepage carries about 469 words of visible text.

3 checks passed

  • 1 call to action

    The homepage has 1 call to action, for example “[email protected]”.

  • 1 short form

    A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage, asking for an email.

  • Direct contact links

    Visitors can reach you directly: 2 phone links and 1 email link.

Privacy and tracking

  • 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.

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 magpharm.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.

Upkeep, stack and company

Stack

Framework
Next.js
Hosting
Contabo

Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info

Go beyond the website

What your $25 Growth Playbook adds

This review found 32 issues on magpharm.com, including 13 speed issues, 5 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