Website review, no card needed
opgal.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 18 October 202630 issues · 77 checks
This review found 30 issues worth fixing on opgal.com, 8 of them high impact, across 77 checks. The most urgent: render-blocking requests. 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
76C- #56,184 of 92,171 reviewed websitesbeats 34%
- #33,907 of 48,903 online storesbeats 26%
- #935 of 2,197 WooCommerce storesbeats 52%
Closest competitors among WooCommerce stores
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2026 | 5.3 s |
| May 2, 2026 | 5.5 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 5.4 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 5.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 5.9 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 6.1 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 6.0 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 5.9 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 5.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 5.3 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 5.2 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 4.9 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 4.8 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 5.0 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 5.0 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 5.1 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 5.2 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 5.2 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 5.8 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 6.2 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 6.0 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 5.6 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 4.8 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 4.3 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 4.3 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2026 | 103 ms |
| May 2, 2026 | 105 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 102 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 117 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 116 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 103 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 98 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 102 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 115 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 109 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 104 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 100 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 93 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
Render-blocking requests
2.1 s45 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 2.1 s.
Mobile performance score: 72
72/100Your mobile performance score is 72 (desktop: 93). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Improve image delivery
209 KiB2 images could be 209 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Reduce unused CSS
150 ms · 34 KiBAbout 34 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. 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.
1 third-party service on the page
1 third-party service load with your homepage (Google Fonts), adding 38 KiB and 0 ms of main-thread time.
2 checks passed
Main-thread work: 0.4 s
A phone's processor spends 0.4 s on main-thread work while loading, 57 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 4 ms
4 msYour server sent the HTML in 4 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.
Speed Index: 7.2 s
7.2 sVisually, the page fills in at 7.2 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 4.4 s
4.4 sYour largest element takes 4.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “OPTICAL GAS IMAGING & MONITORING SOLUTIONS BY OPGAL”. Most of its time is resource load delay (2.7 s).
First Contentful Paint: 3.2 s
3.2 sThe first text or image appears after 3.2 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user LCP: 3.9 s
3.9 sReal visitors wait 3.9 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user FCP: 2.9 s
2.9 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.9 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 1.3 s
1.3 sReal visitors wait 1.3 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Time to Interactive: 4.4 s
4.4 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 4.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
-7%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-10, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 103 ms to 93 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
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 21% faster for real visitors
-21%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-10, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 5.3 s to 4.3 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).
Total Blocking Time: 0 ms
0 msScripts block the page for only 0 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Images and page weight
2 images in older formats
2 images (249 KiB) 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.
About 0.2 g of CO₂ per visit
0.22 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.22 g of CO₂e: 26.9 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
3 checks passed
Page weight: 811 KiB in 59 requests
811 KiBYour homepage downloads 811 KiB in 59 requests on a phone: images 315 KiB (5), fonts 309 KiB (5) and stylesheets 137 KiB (46). That is a lean page.
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
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.
ARIA commands must have an accessible name (2 elements)
ARIA commands must have an accessible name: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (18 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 18 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Contentinfo landmark should not be contained in another landmark (1 element)
Contentinfo 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 contentinfo landmark (1 element)
Document should not have more than one contentinfo landmark: 1 element on the page fails 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.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (1 element)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 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.
1 link without text
1 visible link has no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where it goes.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 17 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
44 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 54 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 44 passed and 10 failed. 1 more need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
Meta description is long (238 characters)
Your meta description is 238 characters; Google truncates after about 160, so the end of your pitch is cut.
Structured data has 3 problems
Structured data found (BreadcrumbList, ImageObject, Organization and WebPage) but with 3 problems, for example “WebSite: url is not an absolute URL ("/")”.
7 links with vague text
7 links use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind them.
108 internal links, 4 external
The homepage links to 108 pages on opgal.com and 4 external pages.
6 checks passed
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “OPTICAL GAS IMAGING & MONITORING SOLUTIONS BY OPGAL”.
Title: 63 characters
Your title is a healthy 63 characters: “Infrared Thermal Cameras and Optical Gas Imaging & More | Opgal”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.opgal.com/.
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.opgal.com/sitemap_index.xml.
AI search readiness
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.
No llms.txt
There is no https://www.opgal.com/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.
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 (473 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
3 pages share a title
https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-multi, https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-co2 and https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-coco2 all use the title “EyeCGas - Gas Imaging Camera - Opgal”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
11 pages without a meta description
https://www.opgal.com/sentinuum24-2, https://www.opgal.com/eyecgas-long-range, https://www.opgal.com/qogi-validation, https://www.opgal.com/opgal-connect, https://www.opgal.com/oil-gas and https://www.opgal.com/natural-gas and 5 others have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
3 pages share a meta description
https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-multi, https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-co2 and https://www.opgal.com/product/eyecgas-coco2 use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 34 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
5 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
Every page has an H1
Each page we checked has a main headline.
No linked page is hidden from search
None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.
Every page has a title
All 15 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
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 8 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Content and conversion
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 155 words
The homepage has only about 155 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.
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.
4 checks passed
Clear next step on the first screen
On a phone, the first screen shows a clear next step: “CONTACT US”.
4 calls to action
The homepage has 4 calls to action, for example “Contact Us” and “Contact us”.
1 short form
A short form (6 fields at most) is right on the homepage, asking for an email.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics and LinkedIn Insight.
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.
2 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 2 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 opgal.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- E-commerce
- WooCommerce
- Analytics
- Google Analytics | Google Tag Manager
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 30 issues on opgal.com, including 10 speed issues, 3 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
14-day money-back guarantee: not happy for any reason, email us within 14 days and we refund in full.