Website review, no card needed
trasmontano.com.br website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 2 November 202659 issues · 92 checks
This review found 59 issues worth fixing on trasmontano.com.br, 24 of them high impact, across 92 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
51FClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.8 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 2.1 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 2.2 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 1.7 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 16, 2026 | 141 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 145 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 137 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 142 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 138 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 138 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 168 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 168 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 167 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 165 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 147 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 138 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 141 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 136 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 128 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 140 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 137 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 145 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 157 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 147 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 147 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 142 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 143 ms |
| Oct 24, 2026 | 159 ms |
| Oct 31, 2026 | 175 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
3.5 s
4.4 s
5.3 s
6.2 s
7.1 s
Speed
Render-blocking requests
9.2 s10 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 9.2 s.
Reduce unused JavaScript
7.5 s · 1.5 MBAbout 1.5 MB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 7.5 s faster on a phone.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
2.0 s · 895 KiB47 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (895 KiB).
Mobile performance score: 26
26/100Your mobile performance score is 26. Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, huggy.chat and RD Station and others), adding 1.4 MB and 1.1 s of main-thread time.
Reduce unused CSS
750 ms · 218 KiBAbout 218 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 750 ms faster on a phone.
Google Tag Manager adds 857 ms
857 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 857 ms of main-thread work and 914 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.
Font display
700 msWeb fonts hide text while they load. Setting font-display: swap shows text immediately (about 700 ms).
14 long tasks on the main thread
14 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 557 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Main-thread work: 2.9 s
A phone's processor spends 2.9 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.3 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
huggy.chat adds 141 ms
141 mshuggy.chat costs a phone 141 ms of main-thread work and 295 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.
Improve image delivery
206 KiB8 images could be 206 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
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.
Minify CSS
2 KiB2 KiB could be saved by minifying CSS.
1 checks passed
Server response: 120 ms
120 msYour server sent the HTML in 120 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.
First Contentful Paint: 8.8 s
8.8 sThe first text or image appears after 8.8 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Largest Contentful Paint: 19.1 s
19.1 sYour largest element takes 19.1 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Nós usamos cookies para melhorar sua experiência de navegaç…”.
Time to Interactive: 33.6 s
33.6 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 33.6 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 11.6 s
11.6 sVisually, the page fills in at 11.6 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Total Blocking Time: 1.2 s
1.2 sScripts block taps and scrolling for 1.2 s in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user LCP: 2.8 s
2.8 sReal visitors wait 2.8 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user CLS: 0.16
0.16For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.16 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user FCP: 2.1 s
2.1 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.1 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.143
0.143The layout shifts by 0.143 while loading, so content jumps under the reader's thumb. Good is under 0.1.
17 images without width and height
17 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) got 17% slower for real visitors
+17%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 141 ms to 175 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
3 checks passed
Real-user INP: 136 ms
136 msReal visitors wait 136 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user TTFB: 484 ms
484 msReal visitors wait 484 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Largest content (LCP) got 14% faster for real visitors
-14%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-31, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.9 s to 1.7 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 5.7 MB in 99 requests
5.7 MBYour homepage downloads 5.7 MB in 99 requests on a phone: scripts 2.5 MB (30), other files 2.2 MB (25) and fonts 410 KiB (6). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
1 image far larger than shown
104 KiB1 image is downloaded at several times the size a phone draws it, for example bannerblog_20210415113124.jpg at 1,903 px wide, shown at 390 px. Resized copies would save about 104 KiB.
2 images in older formats
2 images (221 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.
2 images below the first screen load straight away
2 images further down the page (189 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
About 1.6 g of CO₂ per visit
1.63 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.63 g of CO₂e: 195.0 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
Accessibility
Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children (2 elements)
Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.
2 buttons without a name
2 buttons have no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
75 text elements with low contrast
75 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
4 tap targets too small
4 tap targets are too small or too close together to hit reliably with a finger.
ARIA input fields must have an accessible name (2 elements)
ARIA input fields must have an accessible name: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.
<html> element must have a lang attribute (1 element)
<html> element must have a lang attribute: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated serious by axe-core.
23 images without alt text
23 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (11 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 11 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.
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.
5 links without text
5 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
Frames without titles
1 frame has no title, so screen-reader users cannot tell what it contains.
1 form field without a label
1 form field has no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
No page language
The <html> element has no lang attribute, so screen readers may read the page in the wrong voice and accent.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h2 → h4 and h2 → h5), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
29 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 41 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 29 passed and 12 failed. 3 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No meta description
No meta description, so Google writes its own snippet from whatever text it finds.
No H1 headline
There is no <h1>, so neither visitors nor Google get a clear main headline.
Title is short (17 characters)
Your title is only 17 characters: “Trasmontano Saúde”. 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.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
No social preview image
No Open Graph image (also missing: og:title, og:description), so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://trasmontano.com.br/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
No robots.txt
There is no robots.txt at trasmontano.com.br/robots.txt, the first file search crawlers ask for.
No favicon declared
No favicon is declared in the HTML, so browser tabs and Google's mobile results may show a generic icon.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
47 internal links, 3 external
The homepage links to 47 pages on trasmontano.com.br and 3 external pages.
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://trasmontano.com.br/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
There is no robots.txt, so nothing stops the crawlers behind ChatGPT search, Claude and Perplexity from reading the site and cite it in answers.
Text is in the HTML
Your server sends the page's text in the HTML (2,149 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
8 pages share a title
/, https://trasmontano.com.br/home, https://trasmontano.com.br/regulamentacoesans/regulamentacoesansview/143, https://trasmontano.com.br/regulamentacoesans/regulamentacoesansview/142, https://trasmontano.com.br/regulamentacoesans/regulamentacoesansview/141 and https://trasmontano.com.br/regulamentacoesans/regulamentacoesansview/139 and 2 others all use the title “Trasmontano Saúde”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
13 pages without a meta description
https://trasmontano.com.br/home, https://trasmontano.com.br/sobrenos, https://trasmontano.com.br/hospitaligesp, https://trasmontano.com.br/centrosmedicos, https://trasmontano.com.br/medicinapreventiva and https://trasmontano.com.br/regulamentacoesans/regulamentacoesansview/143 and 7 others have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
3 pages without an H1
https://trasmontano.com.br/home, https://trasmontano.com.br/medicinapreventiva and https://trasmontano.com.br/redecredenciada have no <h1> headline, so visitors and search engines get no clear main topic.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 31 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
4 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.
No linked page is hidden from search
None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.
Every page has a title
All 14 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
1 broken image
1 image failed to load on a phone, for example https://trasmontano.com.br/.
25 small tap targets
25 of 30 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
4 JavaScript errors while loading
4 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Cannot read properties of null (reading 'style')”.
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
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.
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 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.
About 292 words of copy
The homepage carries about 292 words of visible text.
1 checks passed
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics.
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.
6 cookies set on arrival
6Opening the homepage sets 6 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.
20 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 20 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 trasmontano.com.br, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Analytics
- Google Analytics | Google Tag Manager
- Hosting
- As10429 Telefonica Brasil S.A
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 59 issues on trasmontano.com.br, including 22 speed issues, 9 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.