quartsoft.info website review

27 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (5.6 MB).

5 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 16.1 s.

About 1.5 MB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 7.0 s faster on a phone.

About 458 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.9 s faster on a phone.

Your mobile performance score is 43. Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.

3 images could be 275 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 500 ms faster on a phone.

4 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 271 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

5 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Google Maps and Cookiebot and others), adding 370 KiB and 259 ms of main-thread time.

Polyfills for old browsers add 44 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 250 ms faster on a phone.

Critical files load one after another instead of in parallel (3 chains). Preconnecting to key origins and preloading the hero image shortens the chain.

Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.

The first text or image appears after 17.5 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.

Your largest element takes 24.9 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image “quartsoft”.

Visually, the page fills in at 17.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

The page becomes fully interactive after 24.9 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

Scripts block taps and scrolling for 465 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.

1 image have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.

Chrome's UX Report (opens in a new tab) has too little real-visitor traffic for this site, so the figures here are lab measurements from Google's test phone on a throttled 4G connection.

Your homepage downloads 5.9 MB in 39 requests on a phone: scripts 2.8 MB (5), images 2.6 MB (23) and stylesheets 498 KiB (3). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.

By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.67 g of CO₂e: 199.9 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

2 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.

<html> element must have a lang attribute: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated serious by axe-core.

All page content should be contained by landmarks: 30 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

2 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.

The <html> element has no lang attribute, so screen readers may read the page in the wrong voice and accent.

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

No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.

No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.

No Open Graph image (also missing: og:title, og:description), so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.

The homepage links to only 0 pages on your own site, so visitors and crawlers find few routes into the rest of it.

2 links have no real href, so search engines can't follow them.

No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.

A phone browser shows 805 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.

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.

There is no /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 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_FAILED”.

Large scripts ship without source maps.

No Strict-Transport-Security header, so browsers may still try plain http first on a return visit.

No Content-Security-Policy header, the main browser-side defence against injected scripts.

Neither X-Frame-Options nor a CSP frame-ancestors policy is set, so any site can embed yours in a frame.

X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff is missing, so browsers may guess file types.

No Referrer-Policy header, so full URLs can leak to the sites you link to.

No Permissions-Policy header to switch off camera, microphone and location for embedded content.

There is no /.well-known/security.txt telling researchers how to report a security problem to you.

quartsoft.com's DNS answers are not signed. DNSSEC stops attackers forging them to send visitors or email elsewhere; most registrars switch it on in a click, though most sites still run without it.

We found no call-to-action buttons or links (such as “Book a demo” or “Get a quote”) anywhere on the homepage.

No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.

No phone number or email link on the homepage, so ready-to-buy visitors have one fewer way to reach you.

There is no form on the homepage, so every lead has to click through to another page first.

No guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card) is mentioned, which is often what tips a hesitant visitor.

The homepage carries about 805 words of visible text.

quartsoft.info has no DMARC record, so nothing tells receivers what to do with mail that fails SPF or DKIM. Gmail and Yahoo require DMARC from bulk senders.

We found no DKIM key on the selectors the big email providers use. If you send through one of them, turning on DKIM signing improves delivery.

Email authentication: SPF record 25 points, plus 15 when it ends in -all (10 for ~all); DMARC record 25, plus 25 for a reject policy (15 for quarantine); a DKIM key on a common selector 10.

Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager (measured from a US location before any click). A consent tool (Cookiebot) is installed; check it blocks these until visitors agree where the law requires it.

Opening the homepage sets 2 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).

Loading the homepage contacts 7 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.