Website review, no card needed
sending.es website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 27 October 202645 issues · 85 checks
This review found 45 issues worth fixing on sending.es, 18 of them high impact, across 85 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
72CClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.7 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 2.9 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 3.0 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 115 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 114 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 115 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 117 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 120 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 119 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 118 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 116 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 115 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 114 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 115 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
2.1 s · 11.0 MB143 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (11.0 MB).
Render-blocking requests
4.3 s42 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 4.3 s.
Reduce unused JavaScript
750 ms · 446 KiBAbout 446 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 750 ms faster on a phone.
Reduce unused CSS
900 ms · 138 KiBAbout 138 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 900 ms faster on a phone.
Mobile performance score: 62
62/100Your mobile performance score is 62 (desktop: 66). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Font display
650 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 650 ms).
Improve image delivery
534 KiB3 images could be 534 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Google Tag Manager adds 239 ms
239 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 239 ms of main-thread work and 412 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.
6 third-party services on the page
6 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Clarity and LinkedIn Ads and others), adding 581 KiB and 362 ms of main-thread time.
5 long tasks on the main thread
5 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 124 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Legacy JavaScript
7 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 7 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need.
Minify CSS
6 KiB6 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.
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: 1.9 s
A phone's processor spends 1.9 s on main-thread work while loading, 882 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 108 ms
108 msYour server sent the HTML in 108 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.
Real-user LCP: 4.1 s
4.1 sReal visitors wait 4.1 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user TTFB: 1.9 s
1.9 sReal visitors wait 1.9 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Speed Index: 13.5 s
13.5 sVisually, the page fills in at 13.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 5.4 s
5.4 sYour largest element takes 5.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Rapidez, Flexibilidad, Proactividad, Seguridad”. Most of its time is element render delay (6.2 s).
First Contentful Paint: 4.1 s
4.1 sThe first text or image appears after 4.1 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Time to Interactive: 10.2 s
10.2 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 10.2 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Real-user FCP: 2.5 s
2.5 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.5 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
3 images without width and height
3 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
0%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 115 ms to 115 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) got 18% slower for real visitors
+18%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.5 s to 3.0 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
4 checks passed
Real-user INP: 117 ms
117 msReal visitors wait 117 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.04
0.04For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.04 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.04
0.04The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.04, good is under 0.1).
Total Blocking Time: 76 ms
76 msScripts block the page for only 76 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Images and page weight
Page weight: 11.6 MB in 165 requests
11.6 MBYour homepage downloads 11.6 MB in 165 requests on a phone: media 8.7 MB (2), images 1.4 MB (35) and scripts 1.1 MB (76). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
1 image over 500 KB
prueba1.jpg weighs 537 KiB. On a phone connection a single image that size takes seconds.
12 images in older formats
12 images (975 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.
1 image far larger than shown
255 KiB1 image is downloaded at several times the size a phone draws it, for example prueba1.jpg at 1,200 px wide, shown at 290 px. Resized copies would save about 255 KiB.
1 image below the first screen load straight away
1 image further down the page (34 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to it. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
About 3.3 g of CO₂ per visit
3.29 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 3.29 g of CO₂e: 395.2 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
7 text elements with low contrast
7 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
20 images without alt text
20 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.
8 links without text
8 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
1 checks passed
35 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 42 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 35 passed and 7 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.
No social preview image
No Open Graph image, so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.
55 internal links, 10 external
The homepage links to 55 pages on sending.es and 10 external pages.
6 checks passed
Meta description: 154 characters
Your meta description is 154 characters: “En contacto contigo. Rapidez, Flexibilidad, Proactividad, Seguridad. Nuestra principal ventaja competitiva se basa en n…”.
Title: 40 characters
Your title is a healthy 40 characters: “Sending | Transporte Urgente y Logística”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.sending.es/.
Structured data in place
Structured data found: Article, ImageObject, Organization, Person and WebPage.
robots.txt in place
robots.txt is in place.
XML sitemap found
Your XML sitemap is reachable at https://www.sending.es/sitemap.xml.
AI search readiness
Organization data is thin (2 of 6 facts)
Your Organization JSON-LD is missing 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.
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.
llms.txt published
The site publishes https://www.sending.es/llms.txt (52 KiB, 29 links, though it should open with a “# Title” line), a plain-text guide to the site for AI tools.
Other pages
1 linked page is broken
Your homepage links to https://www.sending.es/delegaciones, which answers with an error. Visitors hit a dead end and search engines drop it.
1 linked page hidden from search
https://www.sending.es/clientes is marked noindex but linked from your homepage. If it is meant to be found, remove the noindex.
9 pages share a title
/, https://www.sending.es/ca, https://www.sending.es/en, https://www.sending.es/fr, https://www.sending.es/de and https://www.sending.es/pt-pt and 3 others all use the title “Sending | Transporte Urgente y Logística”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
6 pages without a meta description
https://www.sending.es/area-comercial, https://www.sending.es/servicios, https://www.sending.es/sectores, https://www.sending.es/clientes, https://www.sending.es/actualidad and https://www.sending.es/localiza-tu-envio have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
8 pages share a meta description
https://www.sending.es/ca, https://www.sending.es/en, https://www.sending.es/fr, https://www.sending.es/de, https://www.sending.es/pt-pt and https://www.sending.es/nl and 2 others use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
8 pages without an H1
https://www.sending.es/ca, https://www.sending.es/en, https://www.sending.es/fr, https://www.sending.es/de, https://www.sending.es/pt-pt and https://www.sending.es/nl and 2 others have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
12 pages slow to respond
https://www.sending.es/ca, https://www.sending.es/en, https://www.sending.es/fr, https://www.sending.es/de, https://www.sending.es/pt-pt and https://www.sending.es/nl and 6 others took over 3 s to send their HTML from our server.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 21 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
2 checks passed
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
Every page has a title
All 14 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
2 small tap targets
2 of 5 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 “Failed to load resource: net::ERR_FAILED”.
1 distorted image
1 image is displayed at the wrong aspect ratio, so it looks stretched or squashed.
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
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 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.
Only about 137 words
The homepage has only about 137 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.
Urgency cues
The page uses urgency cues (a countdown or limited-time wording).
2 checks passed
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity and LinkedIn Insight.
Direct contact links
Visitors can reach you directly: 0 phone links and 1 email link.
Privacy and tracking
4 trackers load before any consent
4Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight and Microsoft Clarity (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.
4 cookies set on arrival
4Opening the homepage sets 4 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.
12 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 12 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 sending.es, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
- The footer still says © 2022.
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Analytics | Google Tag Manager | Microsoft Clarity
- Hosting
- OVHcloud
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 45 issues on sending.es, including 17 speed issues, 2 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.