Website review, no card needed
randstad.pl website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 2 November 202628 issues · 78 checks
This review found 28 issues worth fixing on randstad.pl, 9 of them high impact, across 78 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
85BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.3 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 1.3 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 146 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 145 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 144 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 142 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 142 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 143 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 144 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 145 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 144 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 144 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 142 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 143 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 145 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 145 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 146 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 146 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 146 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 147 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 148 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 149 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
2.5 s · 385 KiB27 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (385 KiB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
1.6 s · 294 KiBAbout 294 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.6 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.3 s4 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.3 s.
Reduce unused CSS
1.1 s · 157 KiBAbout 157 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.1 s faster on a phone.
Mobile performance score: 63
63/100Your mobile performance score is 63. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
3 third-party services on the page
3 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Optanon and Unpkg), adding 635 KiB and 514 ms of main-thread time.
Google Tag Manager adds 373 ms
373 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 373 ms of main-thread work and 369 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.
1,990 HTML elements
The page has 1,990 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.
9 long tasks on the main thread
9 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 163 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Improve image delivery
41 KiB3 images could be 41 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Legacy JavaScript
9 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 9 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.
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: 1.6 s
A phone's processor spends 1.6 s on main-thread work while loading, 831 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 6 ms
6 msYour server sent the HTML in 6 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
Largest Contentful Paint: 9.4 s
9.4 sYour largest element takes 9.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image “RM_1303-tech.webp”.
Time to Interactive: 9.5 s
9.5 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 9.5 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.
Total Blocking Time: 336 ms
336 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 336 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
+2%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 146 ms to 149 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
-7%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.4 s to 1.3 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
8 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: 1.6 s
1.6 sReal visitors wait 1.6 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 140 ms
140 msReal visitors wait 140 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.02
0.02For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.02 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user FCP: 1.3 s
1.3 sReal visitors see the first content after 1.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 749 ms
749 msReal visitors wait 749 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
First Contentful Paint: 1.7 s
1.7 sThe first text or image appears after 1.7 s, inside the 1.8 s “good” threshold.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
An image on the first screen is lazy-loaded
RM_1303-tech.webp is on the first screen but marked loading="lazy", so the browser waits before fetching it and the page looks finished later. Load it eagerly (and give it fetchpriority="high" if it is the main image).
4 images far larger than shown
67 KiB4 images are downloaded at several times the size a phone draws them, for example RM_1303-tech.webp at 960 px wide, shown at 271 px. Resized copies would save about 67 KiB.
About 0.4 g of CO₂ per visit
0.41 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.41 g of CO₂e: 49.5 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
2 checks passed
Page weight: 1.5 MB in 60 requests
1.5 MBYour homepage downloads 1.5 MB in 60 requests on a phone: scripts 804 KiB (26), images 357 KiB (17) and stylesheets 144 KiB (2). That is a lean page.
Images use modern formats
Every sizeable image is WebP, AVIF or SVG.
Accessibility
1 text element with low contrast
1 text element doesn't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
Malformed lists
Some lists contain elements other than list items, which screen readers announce wrongly.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (1 element)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
ARIA role should be appropriate for the element (1 element)
ARIA role should be appropriate for the element: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated minor by axe-core.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (1 element).
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 19 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
53 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 57 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 53 passed and 4 failed. 4 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
Structured data has 2 problems
Structured data found (Organization, WebPage and WebSite) but with 2 problems, for example “Organization: missing name”.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is set, so this is minor.
307 internal links, 18 external
The homepage links to 307 pages on randstad.pl and 18 external pages.
7 checks passed
Meta description: 150 characters
Your meta description is 150 characters: “Dzięki technologii HR, empatii, intuicji, znajdziemy dla Ciebie pracę, która będzie współgrać z tym, kim jesteś i czego…”.
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “hej, mamy dla Ciebie pracę”.
Title: 45 characters
Your title is a healthy 45 characters: “Agencja pracy, agencja doradztwa personalnego”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.randstad.pl/.
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.randstad.pl/sitemaps/sitemap.xml.
AI search readiness
Organization data is thin (0 of 6 facts)
Your Organization JSON-LD is missing name, url, logo, 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.randstad.pl/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 (1,298 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
1 link to non-canonical URLs
Your homepage links to 1 page by a URL that isn't its canonical one, for example https://www.randstad.pl/stellantis-hub, whose canonical is https://www.randstad.pl/znajdz-prace. Linking straight to the canonical URL saves crawlers a detour and keeps ranking signals on one address.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 138 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
6 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Every page has a meta description
All 15 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 15 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
6 small tap targets
6 of 14 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
2 JavaScript errors while loading
2 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Uncaught Error: Minified React error #418; visit https://reactjs.org/docs/error-decoder.html?invariant=418 for the full…”.
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.
Thin social proof
Social proof on the homepage: 2 trust badges. Pairing it with named testimonials or customer logos makes it far more convincing.
No analytics detected
No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.
A 12-field form
Your longest form asks for 12 fields (0 required). Every extra field lowers completion.
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 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 370 words of copy
The homepage carries about 370 words of visible text.
1 checks passed
4 calls to action
The homepage has 4 calls to action, for example “obsługa klienta i call center”.
Privacy and tracking
1 tracker load before any consent
1Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Tag Manager (measured from a US location before any click). A consent tool (OneTrust) is installed; check it blocks these until visitors agree where the law requires it.
4 cookies set on arrival
4Opening the homepage sets 4 cookies (measured from a US location before any click).
4 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 4 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
1 checks passed
Consent tool: OneTrust
A consent management tool (OneTrust) loads with the page.
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 randstad.pl, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- CMS
- Drupal
- Framework
- React
- Hosting
- AWS
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 28 issues on randstad.pl, including 12 speed issues, 1 SEO issue and 5 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.