Website review, no card needed
omnilink.com.br website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 28 October 202648 issues · 76 checks
This review found 48 issues worth fixing on omnilink.com.br, 17 of them high impact, across 76 checks. The most urgent: use efficient cache lifetimes. 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
65DClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.5 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 238 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 246 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 247 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 236 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 228 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 246 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 247 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 240 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 251 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 251 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 266 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 292 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 317 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 331 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 337 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 353 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 333 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 317 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 312 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 305 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 320 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 344 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
0.4 s
0.8 s
1.1 s
1.5 s
1.9 s
2.3 s
2.6 s
3.0 s
Speed
Use efficient cache lifetimes
4.0 s · 1.1 MB21 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (1.1 MB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
2.7 s · 566 KiBAbout 566 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.7 s faster on a phone.
Improve image delivery
2.5 s · 641 KiB2 images could be 641 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.5 s faster on a phone.
Mobile performance score: 39
39/100Your mobile performance score is 39 (desktop: 42). 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, Facebook and leadconnectorhq.com and others), adding 1.7 MB and 1.1 s of main-thread time.
Google Tag Manager adds 552 ms
552 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 552 ms of main-thread work and 357 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.
16 long tasks on the main thread
16 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 463 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Main-thread work: 3.7 s
A phone's processor spends 3.7 s on main-thread work while loading, 2.0 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
Reduce unused CSS
300 ms · 18 KiBAbout 18 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.
Facebook adds 266 ms
266 msFacebook costs a phone 266 ms of main-thread work and 279 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.
leadconnectorhq.com adds 140 ms
140 msleadconnectorhq.com costs a phone 140 ms of main-thread work and 952 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.
Render-blocking requests
200 ms2 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 200 ms.
Legacy JavaScript
150 ms · 25 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 25 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
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.
Forced reflow
Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.
Minify JavaScript
2 KiB2 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
1 checks passed
Server response: 1 ms
1 msYour server sent the HTML in 1 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: 17.3 s
17.3 sYour largest element takes 17.3 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “div.absolute”.
Time to Interactive: 19.6 s
19.6 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 19.6 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
First Contentful Paint: 6.3 s
6.3 sThe first text or image appears after 6.3 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Speed Index: 9.7 s
9.7 sVisually, the page fills in at 9.7 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Total Blocking Time: 706 ms
706 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 706 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user INP: 343 ms
343 msReal visitors wait 343 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Tap response (INP) got 37% slower for real visitors
+37%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 238 ms to 344 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.1 s
2.1 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.1 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
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 2.5 s to 2.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user LCP: 2.5 s
2.5 sReal visitors wait 2.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user CLS: 0.10
0.10For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.10 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user TTFB: 602 ms
602 msReal visitors wait 602 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 3.2 MB in 135 requests
3.2 MBYour homepage downloads 3.2 MB in 135 requests on a phone: scripts 2.0 MB (67), images 911 KiB (22) and stylesheets 112 KiB (13). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 0.9 g of CO₂ per visit
0.89 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.89 g of CO₂e: 107.4 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
3 checks passed
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
2 buttons without a name
2 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
4 text elements with low contrast
4 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (2 elements)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Main landmark should not be contained in another landmark (1 element)
Main landmark should not be contained in another landmark: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Document should not have more than one main landmark (1 element)
Document should not have more than one main landmark: 1 element on the page fails 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.
5 form fields without a label
5 form fields have no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
Headings should not be empty (1 element)
Headings should not be empty: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated minor by axe-core.
1 checks passed
41 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 48 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 41 passed and 7 failed. 1 more need a person to judge. 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.
Title is short (8 characters)
Your title is only 8 characters: “Omnilink”. 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 short (16 characters)
Your meta description is only 16 characters: “Site da Omnilink”. 70 to 160 characters is enough to sell the click.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
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://omnilink.com.br/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
No robots.txt
There is no robots.txt at omnilink.com.br/robots.txt, the first file search crawlers ask for.
Only 0 internal links
The homepage links to only 0 pages on your own site, so visitors and crawlers find few routes into the rest of it.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
AI search readiness
Most text only appears after JavaScript runs
0%A phone browser shows 615 words, but the HTML your server sends has only 0. GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot read that HTML without running JavaScript, so they see an almost empty page. Server-side rendering or pre-rendering fixes it.
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 https://omnilink.com.br/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
There is no robots.txt, so nothing stops the crawlers behind ChatGPT search, Claude and Perplexity from reading the site and cite it in answers.
Best practices
7 small tap targets
7 of 18 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
1 third-party cookie
1 third-party cookie is set on load; browsers are restricting these, so whatever relies on them breaks.
6 JavaScript errors while loading
6 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Sending form data to 'https://www.facebook.com/tr/' violates the following Content Security Policy directive: "form-act…”.
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.
No calls to action
We found no call-to-action buttons or links (such as “Book a demo” or “Get a quote”) anywhere on the homepage.
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.
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.
About 615 words of copy
The homepage carries about 615 words of visible text.
1 checks passed
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager and Meta Pixel.
Privacy and tracking
5 trackers load before any consent
5Before 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.
4 cookies set on arrival
4Opening the homepage sets 4 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.
13 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 13 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
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 omnilink.com.br, 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
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- CloudFront
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 48 issues on omnilink.com.br, including 20 speed issues, 9 SEO issues 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.