Website review, no card needed
proa.pe website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 20 October 202646 issues · 93 checks
This review found 46 issues worth fixing on proa.pe, 17 of them high impact, across 93 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
73CClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.8 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 99 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 100 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 99 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 102 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 105 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 106 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 106 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 107 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 115 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 111 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 112 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 122 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 125 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
Use efficient cache lifetimes
3.5 s · 778 KiB68 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (778 KiB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
2.3 s · 684 KiBAbout 684 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.3 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
2.3 s7 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 2.3 s.
Mobile performance score: 64
64/100Your mobile performance score is 64. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Improve image delivery
600 ms · 83 KiB1 image could be 83 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 600 ms faster on a phone.
Reduce unused CSS
600 ms · 67 KiBAbout 67 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.
7 third-party services on the page
7 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Facebook and Google Analytics and others), adding 1.1 MB and 537 ms of main-thread time.
Minify JavaScript
450 ms · 61 KiB61 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
Google Tag Manager adds 285 ms
285 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 285 ms of main-thread work and 443 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.
Font display
300 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 300 ms).
Facebook adds 160 ms
160 msFacebook costs a phone 160 ms of main-thread work and 311 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
150 ms · 22 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 22 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
Minify CSS
150 ms · 12 KiB12 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.
8 long tasks on the main thread
8 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 103 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
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.
2 checks passed
Main-thread work: 1.4 s
A phone's processor spends 1.4 s on main-thread work while loading, 687 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.
Largest Contentful Paint: 13.3 s
13.3 sYour largest element takes 13.3 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image.
Time to Interactive: 13.4 s
13.4 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 13.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
First Contentful Paint: 3.0 s
3.0 sThe first text or image appears after 3.0 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Tap response (INP) got 24% slower for real visitors
+24%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 99 ms to 125 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.
Real-user TTFB: 1.1 s
1.1 sReal visitors wait 1.1 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Speed Index: 5.7 s
5.7 sVisually, the page fills in at 5.7 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
26 images without width and height
26 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
+7%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.7 s to 1.8 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
5 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 INP: 127 ms
127 msReal visitors wait 127 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.
Total Blocking Time: 131 ms
131 msScripts block the page for only 131 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
2 images in older formats
2 images (290 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 0.5 g of CO₂ per visit
0.55 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.55 g of CO₂e: 65.8 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: 1.9 MB in 86 requests
1.9 MBYour homepage downloads 1.9 MB in 86 requests on a phone: scripts 1.0 MB (24), images 683 KiB (39) and fonts 119 KiB (4). 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
Invalid ARIA attributes
3 elements use ARIA attributes their role does not allow, which confuses screen readers.
31 text elements with low contrast
31 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
8 tap targets too small
8 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
<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.
59 images without alt text
59 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (14 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 14 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.
Zoom is disabled
The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.
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.
6 links without text
6 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
No page language
The <html> element has no lang attribute, so screen readers may read the page in the wrong voice and accent.
1 checks passed
29 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 39 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 29 passed and 10 failed. 3 mores 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 (4 characters)
Your title is only 4 characters: “PROA”. 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.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://proa.pe/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, 4 external
The homepage links to 85 pages on proa.pe and 4 external pages.
3 checks passed
Meta description: 123 characters
Your meta description is 123 characters: “Proa es la primera plataforma peruana que conecta a personas que quieren hacer voluntariado, con organizaciones solidar…”.
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://proa.pe/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 (796 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
13 pages share a title
/, https://proa.pe/sobre-proa, https://proa.pe/campa%C3%B1as_todas, https://proa.pe/crowdfunding, https://proa.pe/organizaciones and https://proa.pe/empresas and 7 others all use the title “PROA”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
14 pages share a meta description
https://proa.pe/sobre-proa, https://proa.pe/programas_todos, https://proa.pe/campa%C3%B1as_todas, https://proa.pe/crowdfunding, https://proa.pe/organizaciones and https://proa.pe/empresas and 8 others use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
1 page without an H1
https://proa.pe/programas_todos has no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
2 pages with very little text
https://proa.pe/crowdfunding and https://proa.pe/blog have under 150 words in the HTML. Thin pages rarely rank; if the text loads with JavaScript, crawlers that don't run it see even less.
5 pages slow to respond
https://proa.pe/programas_de_animales, https://proa.pe/programas_de_medio-ambiente, https://proa.pe/programas_de_educacion, https://proa.pe/programas_de_salud and https://proa.pe/programas_de_arte-y-cultura took over 3 s to send their HTML from our server.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 31 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 a meta description
All 14 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 14 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
2 broken images
2 images failed to load on a phone, for example https://proa.pe/.
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
3 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
Tap targets are thumb-sized
13 of 13 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.
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 277 words of copy
The homepage carries about 277 words of visible text.
1 checks passed
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics.
Privacy and tracking
3 trackers load before any consent
3Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager 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.
8 cookies set on arrival
8Opening the homepage sets 8 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.
9 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 9 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 proa.pe, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- 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 46 issues on proa.pe, including 20 speed issues, 5 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.