Website review, no card needed
solteq.com website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 29 October 202636 issues · 84 checks
This review found 36 issues worth fixing on solteq.com, 12 of them high impact, across 84 checks. The most urgent: render-blocking requests. 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
83BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 3.3 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 3.3 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 3.3 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 3.3 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 2.8 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 9, 2026 | 160 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 165 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 164 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 174 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 183 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 183 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 178 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 163 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 161 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 163 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 170 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 164 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 164 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 161 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 155 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 153 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 164 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 179 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 203 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 208 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 209 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 217 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 202 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
Render-blocking requests
3.6 s14 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 3.6 s.
Mobile performance score: 42
42/100Your mobile performance score is 42. Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
Main-thread work: 5.9 s
A phone's processor spends 5.9 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.8 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
3,869 HTML elements
The page has 3,869 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (hsappstatic.net, Facebook and Google Tag Manager and others), adding 948 KiB and 1.1 s of main-thread time.
Improve image delivery
1.1 MB47 images could be 1.1 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
300 ms · 676 KiB106 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (676 KiB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
450 ms · 297 KiBAbout 297 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 450 ms faster on a phone.
19 long tasks on the main thread
19 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 300 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Facebook adds 272 ms
272 msFacebook costs a phone 272 ms of main-thread work and 223 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.
hsappstatic.net adds 276 ms
276 mshsappstatic.net costs a phone 276 ms of main-thread work and 85 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.
Reduce unused CSS
150 ms · 36 KiBAbout 36 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
Legacy JavaScript
150 ms · 21 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 21 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
Minify CSS
150 ms · 5 KiB5 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.
Font display
50 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 50 ms).
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: 12 ms
12 msYour server sent the HTML in 12 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
Largest Contentful Paint: 13.6 s
13.6 sYour largest element takes 13.6 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Nordic eCommerce trend report 2026 Nordic businesses are at…”.
Time to Interactive: 19.5 s
19.5 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 19.5 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
First Contentful Paint: 4.8 s
4.8 sThe first text or image appears after 4.8 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Speed Index: 8.9 s
8.9 sVisually, the page fills in at 8.9 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Total Blocking Time: 612 ms
612 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 612 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Tap response (INP) got 29% slower for real visitors
+29%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 160 ms to 202 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) got 69% slower for real visitors
+69%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.8 s to 2.8 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
7 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: 2.4 s
2.4 sReal visitors wait 2.4 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 198 ms
198 msReal visitors wait 198 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.
Real-user FCP: 1.6 s
1.6 sReal visitors see the first content after 1.6 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 683 ms
683 msReal visitors wait 683 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
0The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 4.2 MB in 135 requests
4.2 MBYour homepage downloads 4.2 MB in 135 requests on a phone: images 2.8 MB (76), scripts 881 KiB (30) and fonts 449 KiB (6). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
24 images in older formats
24 images (1.1 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.
30 images below the first screen load straight away
30 images further down the page (1.2 MB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
1 image far larger than shown
152 KiB1 image is downloaded at several times the size a phone draws it, for example Product-page-hero-commerce-cloud-main-1920x940.jpg at 1,920 px wide, shown at 291 px. Resized copies would save about 152 KiB.
About 1.2 g of CO₂ per visit
1.19 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.19 g of CO₂e: 142.6 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
5 buttons without a name
5 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (2 elements)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Document should not have more than one banner landmark (1 element)
Document should not have more than one banner landmark: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
4 links without text
4 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.
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.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h1 → h4, h1 → h4 and h1 → h4), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 131 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
48 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 54 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 48 passed and 6 failed. 3 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No structured data
No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.
6 H1 headlines
There are 6 <h1> headlines (“Nordic businesses are at a crossroads: evolve or …”, “Simplifying the digital world to make a better to…” and “Leading expert services for eCommerce solutions”). One clear main headline is easier for people and search engines.
8 links crawlers can't follow
8 links have no real href, so search engines can't follow them.
296 internal links, 4 external
The homepage links to 296 pages on solteq.com and 4 external pages.
6 checks passed
Meta description: 139 characters
Your meta description is 139 characters: “Solteq is a Nordic software solution and expert service provider specializing in retail and energy sectors and needs re…”.
Title: 38 characters
Your title is a healthy 38 characters: “Solteq - Simplifying the digital world”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://www.solteq.com/.
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.solteq.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.solteq.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 (6,342 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 152 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
7 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
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
Browser-reported issues
Chrome logged issues while loading the page (“Cookie”).
3 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
Tap targets are thumb-sized
85 of 90 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.
Thin social proof
Social proof on the homepage: 10 customer or partner logos. Pairing it with named testimonials or customer logos makes it far more convincing.
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.
About 1,597 words of copy
The homepage carries about 1,597 words of visible text.
4 checks passed
15 calls to action
The homepage has 15 calls to action, for example “Contact”, “Contact us” and “Contact via form”.
1 short form
A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.
Risk reducer mentioned
A guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card or similar) is mentioned on the page.
Privacy and tracking
4 trackers load before any consent
4Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, LinkedIn Insight and Meta Pixel (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.
7 cookies set on arrival
7Opening the homepage sets 7 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.
22 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 22 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 solteq.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- HubSpot
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 36 issues on solteq.com, including 18 speed issues, 3 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.