Website review, no card needed
sedemac.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 29 October 202639 issues · 64 checks
This review found 39 issues worth fixing on sedemac.com, 14 of them high impact, across 64 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
68DClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.0 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 202 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 208 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 210 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 208 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 206 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 204 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 205 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 205 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 206 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 212 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 212 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 214 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 213 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 206 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 214 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 215 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 211 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 211 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 204 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 203 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 202 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 202 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 202 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 204 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 210 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
0.9 s
1.8 s
2.7 s
3.6 s
4.5 s
5.4 s
6.3 s
7.2 s
Speed
Use efficient cache lifetimes
3.2 s · 1.8 MB12 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (1.8 MB).
Improve image delivery
1.1 s · 1.5 MB7 images could be 1.5 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.1 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.5 s2 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.5 s.
Reduce unused JavaScript
1.1 s · 222 KiBAbout 222 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.1 s faster on a phone.
Mobile performance score: 54
54/100Your mobile performance score is 54. Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Google Tag Manager adds 317 ms
317 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 317 ms of main-thread work and 187 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.
3 long tasks on the main thread
3 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 252 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
4 third-party services on the page
4 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, lfeeder.com and Google Fonts and others), adding 203 KiB and 382 ms of main-thread time.
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: 1.1 s
A phone's processor spends 1.1 s on main-thread work while loading, 752 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 1 ms
1 msYour server sent the HTML in 1 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: 12.4 s
12.4 sYour largest element takes 12.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image “Small Engine-Powered Vehicles”.
Time to Interactive: 12.7 s
12.7 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 12.7 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 8.6 s
8.6 sVisually, the page fills in at 8.6 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Real-user INP: 224 ms
224 msReal visitors wait 224 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Largest content (LCP) got 22% slower for real visitors
+22%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.6 s to 2.0 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.2 s
2.2 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.2 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.
First Contentful Paint: 2.9 s
2.9 sThe first text or image appears after 2.9 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Total Blocking Time: 339 ms
339 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 339 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
+1%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 202 ms to 210 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
3 checks passed
Real-user LCP: 2.3 s
2.3 sReal visitors wait 2.3 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user CLS: 0.00
0.00For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
6 images far larger than shown
764 KiB6 images are downloaded at several times the size a phone draws them, for example ICEProd.6e61277ce71d754a0c10.png at 938 px wide, shown at 230 px. Resized copies would save about 764 KiB.
Page weight: 2.0 MB in 17 requests
2.0 MBYour homepage downloads 2.0 MB in 17 requests on a phone: images 1.6 MB (9), scripts 462 KiB (3) and stylesheets 11 KiB (2). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
7 images in older formats
7 images (1.6 MB) 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.
1 image below the first screen load straight away
1 image further down the page (281 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to it. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
About 0.6 g of CO₂ per visit
0.57 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.57 g of CO₂e: 68.9 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
Images must have alternative text (1 element)
Images must have alternative text: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated critical by axe-core.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (2 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
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.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (1 element).
1 checks passed
32 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 35 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 32 passed and 3 failed. 1 more 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 (29 characters)
Your title is only 29 characters: “SEDEMAC | Innovative Controls”. 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.
Meta description is short (46 characters)
Your meta description is only 46 characters: “Innovative control products for large markets.”. 70 to 160 characters is enough to sell the click.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
No robots.txt
There is no robots.txt at sedemac.com/robots.txt, the first file search crawlers ask for.
Only 0 internal links
The homepage links to only 0 pages on your own site, so visitors and crawlers find few routes into the rest of it.
Open Graph partly set
Open Graph is missing og:description, so shared links fall back to guesses.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
1 checks passed
XML sitemap found
Your XML sitemap is reachable at https://www.sedemac.com/sitemap.xml.
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.sedemac.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.
Best practices
3 small tap targets
3 of 6 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
2 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
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 analytics detected
No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.
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 38 words
The homepage has only about 38 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.
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.
Privacy and tracking
3 trackers load before any consent
3Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads, Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager (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.
5 cookies set on arrival
5Opening the homepage sets 5 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.
6 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 6 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 sedemac.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Hosting
- Azure
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 39 issues on sedemac.com, including 17 speed issues, 7 SEO issues and 6 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.