Website review, no card needed
oswaldcompanies.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 5 November 202627 issues · 71 checks
This review found 27 issues worth fixing on oswaldcompanies.com, 7 of them high impact, across 71 checks. The most urgent: page weight: 15.7 MB in 35 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
84BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.2 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 1.5 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 79 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 79 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 79 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 88 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 81 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 81 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 88 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 88 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 103 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 97 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 94 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 75 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 68 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 63 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 63 ms |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 58 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
5 third-party services on the page
5 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, awswaf.com and Cookiebot and others), adding 11.0 MB and 435 ms of main-thread time.
Reduce unused JavaScript
900 ms · 371 KiBAbout 371 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 900 ms faster on a phone.
nmcdn.io adds 5 ms
5 msnmcdn.io costs a phone 5 ms of main-thread work and 10.1 MB 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.
Mobile performance score: 70
70/100Your mobile performance score is 70. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Reduce unused CSS
750 ms · 199 KiBAbout 199 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 750 ms faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
350 ms3 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 350 ms.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
300 ms · 36 KiB2 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (36 KiB).
Google Tag Manager adds 217 ms
217 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 217 ms of main-thread work and 313 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.
awswaf.com adds 126 ms
126 msawswaf.com costs a phone 126 ms of main-thread work and 408 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.
4 long tasks on the main thread
4 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 166 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Improve image delivery
56 KiB3 images could be 56 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
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.
2 checks passed
Main-thread work: 1.0 s
A phone's processor spends 1.0 s on main-thread work while loading, 485 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 25 ms
25 msYour server sent the HTML in 25 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
Largest Contentful Paint: 6.5 s
6.5 sYour largest element takes 6.5 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image.
Time to Interactive: 8.4 s
8.4 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 8.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 5.2 s
5.2 sVisually, the page fills in at 5.2 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
First Contentful Paint: 2.2 s
2.2 sThe first text or image appears after 2.2 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
2 images without width and height
2 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Largest content (LCP) got 10% slower for real visitors
+10%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.4 s to 1.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
9 checks passed
Passes Core Web Vitals for real visitors
Real Chrome users on phones pass Google's Core Web Vitals on this page (28-day field data from the Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab)).
Real-user LCP: 1.5 s
1.5 sReal visitors wait 1.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 55 ms
55 msReal visitors wait 55 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.00
0.00For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user FCP: 0.8 s
0.8 sReal visitors see the first content after 0.8 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 421 ms
421 msReal visitors wait 421 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Tap response (INP) got 23% faster for real visitors
-23%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 79 ms to 58 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Total Blocking Time: 113 ms
113 msScripts block the page for only 113 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 15.7 MB in 35 requests
15.7 MBYour homepage downloads 15.7 MB in 35 requests on a phone: media 14.4 MB (1), scripts 925 KiB (12) and stylesheets 176 KiB (4). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 4.4 g of CO₂ per visit
4.44 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 4.44 g of CO₂e: 532.7 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
<html> element must have a lang attribute (1 element)
<html> element must have a lang attribute: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated serious by axe-core.
2 buttons without a name
2 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (5 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 5 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Heading levels should only increase by one (1 element)
Heading levels should only increase by one: 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.
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 10 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
8 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 12 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 8 passed and 4 failed. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No structured data
No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://www.oswaldcompanies.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is set, so this is minor.
85 internal links, 16 external
The homepage links to 85 pages on oswaldcompanies.com and 16 external pages.
6 checks passed
Meta description: 138 characters
Your meta description is 138 characters: “Founded in 1893, Oswald advisers deliver the full range of insurance brokerage and risk management services. Learn more…”.
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “Risk and Insurance Leadership since 1893.”.
Title: 48 characters
Your title is a healthy 48 characters: “Risk Management and Insurance | Oswald Companies”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.oswaldcompanies.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.
AI search readiness
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://www.oswaldcompanies.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.
1 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.
Other pages
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 53 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
7 checks passed
Linked pages load
10 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 10 pages that loaded have a meta description.
Titles are unique
Every page we checked has its own title.
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 10 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
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 429 ()”.
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 social proof
No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.
Only about 15 words
The homepage has only about 15 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
3 calls to action
The homepage has 3 calls to action, for example “Contact Us”.
1 short form
A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.
Direct contact links
Visitors can reach you directly: 3 phone links and 0 email links.
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 oswaldcompanies.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
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- AWS
Company
- Headquarters
- Cleveland
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 27 issues on oswaldcompanies.com, including 14 speed issues, 2 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.