Website review, no card needed
sitrack.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 1 November 202647 issues · 85 checks
This review found 47 issues worth fixing on sitrack.com, 21 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
68DClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 2.2 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 2.2 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 2.2 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 2.3 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 2.4 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 2.6 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 2.5 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.7 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 158 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 158 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 157 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 158 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 160 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 158 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 157 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 156 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 144 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 150 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 158 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 162 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 164 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 156 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 155 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 158 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 150 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 159 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 177 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 188 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 210 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 203 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 180 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 180 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
2.3 s
4.7 s
7.0 s
9.4 s
11.7 s
14.1 s
16.4 s
18.8 s
Speed
Use efficient cache lifetimes
5.5 s · 1.5 MB36 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (1.5 MB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
4.4 s · 814 KiBAbout 814 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 4.4 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
4.2 s20 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 4.2 s.
Font display
3.0 sWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 3.0 s).
Mobile performance score: 41
41/100Your mobile performance score is 41. Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
Main-thread work: 4.3 s
A phone's processor spends 4.3 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.9 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Hubspot and Facebook and others), adding 1.7 MB and 1.1 s of main-thread time.
Google Tag Manager adds 486 ms
486 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 486 ms of main-thread work and 690 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.
Hubspot adds 422 ms
422 msHubspot costs a phone 422 ms of main-thread work and 723 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
300 ms · 26 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 26 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.
15 long tasks on the main thread
15 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 222 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.
1 checks passed
Server response: 185 ms
185 msYour server sent the HTML in 185 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 TTFB: 1.8 s
1.8 sReal visitors wait 1.8 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Largest Contentful Paint: 18.1 s
18.1 sYour largest element takes 18.1 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the element shown below. Most of its time is element render delay (18.3 s).
Speed Index: 15.1 s
15.1 sVisually, the page fills in at 15.1 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Time to Interactive: 18.2 s
18.2 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 18.2 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
First Contentful Paint: 3.6 s
3.6 sThe first text or image appears after 3.6 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Total Blocking Time: 693 ms
693 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 693 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user LCP: 3.7 s
3.7 sReal visitors wait 3.7 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Largest content (LCP) got 31% slower for real visitors
+31%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 2.0 s to 2.7 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.3 s
2.3 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
5 images without width and height
5 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) got 14% slower for real visitors
+14%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 158 ms to 180 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
3 checks passed
Real-user INP: 180 ms
180 msReal visitors wait 180 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.01
0.01For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.01 (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
3 images over 500 KB
3 images weigh 1.5 MB together. On a phone connection a single image that size takes seconds.
10 images in older formats
10 images (3.1 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.
10 images below the first screen load straight away
10 images further down the page (3.1 MB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
Page weight: 2.4 MB in 164 requests
2.4 MBYour homepage downloads 2.4 MB in 164 requests on a phone: scripts 1.8 MB (49), images 371 KiB (69) and stylesheets 150 KiB (19). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 0.7 g of CO₂ per visit
0.69 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.69 g of CO₂e: 83.3 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
1 checks passed
Images are sized for phones
No image is downloaded at more than three times the size it is drawn on a phone.
Accessibility
24 text elements with low contrast
24 text elements don'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.
11 images without alt text
11 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (13 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 13 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.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (1 element)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Zoom is disabled
The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.
5 links without text
5 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
1 form field without a label
1 form field has no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h4 and h2 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
28 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 37 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 28 passed and 9 failed. 2 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
Title is short (7 characters)
Your title is only 7 characters: “Sitrack”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.
Meta description is short (27 characters)
Your meta description is only 27 characters: “Just another WordPress site”. 70 to 160 characters is enough to sell the click.
Structured data has 1 problem
Structured data found (ImageObject, WebPage and WebSite) but with 1 problem, for example “ImageObject: url is not an absolute URL ("https://www.sitrack.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/banners/rastreo-stelital-intel…”.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at http://www.sitrack.com/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
24 internal links, 30 external
The homepage links to 24 pages on sitrack.com and 30 external pages.
4 checks passed
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “sitrack”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is http://www.sitrack.com/portal/.
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.
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.sitrack.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.
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 (692 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
2 linked pages are broken
Your homepage links to https://www.sitrack.com/portal/mobileye/es and https://www.sitrack.com/portal/mexico/es, which answer with an error. Visitors hit a dead end and search engines drop them.
2 linked pages hidden from search
https://www.sitrack.com/portal/quienes-somos and https://www.sitrack.com/portal/contacto are marked noindex but linked from your homepage. If they are meant to be found, remove the noindex.
8 pages share a meta description
https://www.sitrack.com/portal/quienes-somos, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/soluciones, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/contacto, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/en/home, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politica-de-seguridad-de-la-informacion and https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politicas-de-calidad and 2 others use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
5 pages without an H1
https://www.sitrack.com/portal/ican/es/index.html, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politica-de-seguridad-de-la-informacion, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politicas-de-calidad, https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politicas-de-privacidad-de-app and https://www.sitrack.com/portal/politica-privacidad-informacion have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
12 internal pages checked
We fetched 12 pages linked from your homepage and read each the way a search engine does.
4 checks passed
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
Every page has a meta description
All 10 pages that loaded have a meta description.
Titles are unique
Every page we checked has its own title.
Every page has a title
All 10 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
2 distorted images
2 images are displayed at the wrong aspect ratio, so they look stretched or squashed.
Browser-reported issues
Chrome logged issues while loading the page (“Mixed content”).
3 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
Tap targets are thumb-sized
9 of 9 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.
Phone number is not tap-to-call
Your phone number appears as text but isn't a tel: link, so phone visitors can't tap to call.
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 525 words of copy
The homepage carries about 525 words of visible text.
2 checks passed
1 short form
A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager and HubSpot.
Privacy and tracking
6 trackers load before any consent
6Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot and LinkedIn Insight and 1 more (measured from a US location before any click). A consent tool (HubSpot cookie banner) is installed; check it blocks these until visitors agree where the law requires it.
11 cookies set on arrival
11Opening the homepage sets 11 cookies, 1 of them by other companies (measured from a US location before any click).
28 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 28 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
1 checks passed
Consent tool: HubSpot cookie banner
A consent management tool (HubSpot cookie banner) 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 sitrack.com, 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 © 2025.
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- Sitrack.Com
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 47 issues on sitrack.com, including 21 speed issues, 4 SEO issues and 3 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.