Website review, no card needed

wardandsmith.com logo

wardandsmith.com website review

Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 26 October 202620 issues · 71 checks

This review found 20 issues worth fixing on wardandsmith.com, 6 of them high impact, across 71 checks. The most urgent: reduce unused JavaScript. Your full playbook turns these into prioritised fixes alongside reviews, competitors and channels.

  1. Homepage
  2. Phone render
  3. Links and pages
  4. Google PageSpeed

Google PageSpeed Insights (opens in a new tab), mobile

Real-visitor load time (LCP)75th percentile, phones
1.2 s856 msMay 9Oct 241.0 s
Show as table
DateReal-visitor load time (LCP)
May 9, 2026892 ms
May 16, 2026908 ms
May 23, 2026925 ms
May 30, 20261.0 s
Jun 6, 20261.1 s
Jun 13, 20261.0 s
Jun 20, 20261.0 s
Jun 27, 20261.0 s
Jul 4, 20261.0 s
Jul 11, 20261.1 s
Jul 18, 20261.1 s
Jul 25, 2026951 ms
Aug 1, 2026915 ms
Aug 8, 2026905 ms
Aug 15, 2026924 ms
Aug 22, 20261.0 s
Aug 29, 20261.1 s
Sep 5, 20261.0 s
Sep 12, 20261.0 s
Sep 19, 20261.1 s
Sep 26, 20261.1 s
Oct 3, 20261.1 s
Oct 10, 20261.1 s
Oct 17, 20261.1 s
Oct 24, 20261.0 s
Real-visitor tap response (INP)75th percentile, phones
91 ms57 msMay 9Oct 2466 ms
Show as table
DateReal-visitor tap response (INP)
May 9, 202679 ms
May 16, 202687 ms
May 23, 202681 ms
May 30, 202662 ms
Jun 6, 202663 ms
Jun 13, 202665 ms
Jun 20, 202663 ms
Jun 27, 202668 ms
Jul 4, 202669 ms
Jul 11, 202668 ms
Jul 18, 202666 ms
Jul 25, 202662 ms
Aug 1, 202661 ms
Aug 8, 202661 ms
Aug 15, 202662 ms
Aug 22, 202661 ms
Aug 29, 202662 ms
Sep 5, 202664 ms
Sep 12, 202669 ms
Sep 19, 202670 ms
Sep 26, 202670 ms
Oct 3, 202670 ms
Oct 10, 202669 ms
Oct 17, 202668 ms
Oct 24, 202666 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

Full-page screenshot of wardandsmith.com (desktop) rendered by Google PageSpeed Insights

How it loaded on a phone

  1. wardandsmith.com at 0.5 s0.5 s
  2. wardandsmith.com at 1.1 s1.1 s
  3. wardandsmith.com at 1.6 s1.6 s
  4. wardandsmith.com at 2.1 s2.1 s
  5. wardandsmith.com at 2.7 s2.7 s
  6. wardandsmith.com at 3.2 s3.2 s
  7. wardandsmith.com at 3.8 s3.8 s
  8. wardandsmith.com at 4.3 s4.3 s

Speed

4 to fix67
  • Reduce unused JavaScript

    2.1 s · 318 KiB

    About 318 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 2.1 s faster on a phone.

  • Mobile performance score: 67

    67/100

    Your mobile performance score is 67 (desktop: 98). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.

  • Improve image delivery

    300 ms · 453 KiB

    23 images could be 453 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.

  • Render-blocking requests

    450 ms

    1 file blocks the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining it could save about 450 ms.

  • 5 third-party services on the page

    5 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Accessibe Accessibility Overlay and Google CDN and others), adding 745 KiB and 393 ms of main-thread time.

  • 3 long tasks on the main thread

    3 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 186 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.

  • Reduce unused CSS

    16 KiB

    About 16 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page.

  • Phones get a much slower page than desktops

    Desktop scores 98 but mobile only 67. A gap that wide usually means heavy scripts and images that hit phones hardest.

  • 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: 0.8 s

    A phone's processor spends 0.8 s on main-thread work while loading, 351 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.

  • Server response: 27 ms

    27 ms

    Your server sent the HTML in 27 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.

Core Web Vitals

4 to fix100
  • Largest Contentful Paint: 8.3 s

    8.3 s

    Your largest element takes 8.3 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Reliability, responsiveness, and teamwork are the standards…”.

  • Time to Interactive: 8.4 s

    8.4 s

    The page becomes fully interactive after 8.4 s. Good is under 3.8 s.

  • Speed Index: 5.2 s

    5.2 s

    Visually, the page fills in at 5.2 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.

  • First Contentful Paint: 2.1 s

    2.1 s

    The first text or image appears after 2.1 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.

  • 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 0.9 s to 1.0 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

9 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: 1.0 s

    1.0 s

    Real visitors wait 1.0 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.

  • Real-user INP: 66 ms

    66 ms

    Real visitors wait 66 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.

  • Real-user CLS: 0.00

    0.00

    For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.

  • Real-user FCP: 0.9 s

    0.9 s

    Real visitors see the first content after 0.9 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.

  • Real-user TTFB: 512 ms

    512 ms

    Real visitors wait 512 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.

  • Tap response (INP) got 19% faster for real visitors

    -19%

    Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-24, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 79 ms to 66 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).

  • Total Blocking Time: 183 ms

    183 ms

    Scripts block the page for only 183 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.

  • Cumulative Layout Shift: 0

    0

    The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0, good is under 0.1).

Images and page weight

100
  • About 0.4 g of CO₂ per visit

    0.39 g

    By the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.39 g of CO₂e: 47.1 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.

1 checks passed
  • Page weight: 1.4 MB in 46 requests

    1.4 MB

    Your homepage downloads 1.4 MB in 46 requests on a phone: images 632 KiB (32), scripts 627 KiB (5) and fonts 116 KiB (6). That is a lean page.

Accessibility

4 to fixGoogle 10081
  • <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.

  • All page content should be contained by landmarks (5 elements)

    All page content should be contained by landmarks: 5 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.

  • Heading levels should only increase by one (1 element)

    Heading levels should only increase by one: 1 element on the page fails 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.

  • Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.

    Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (8 elements).

2 checks passed
  • Every image has alt text

    All 36 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.

  • 8 automated accessibility rules passed

    axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 12 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 8 passed and 4 failed. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.

SEO

2 to fixGoogle 9283
  • No meta description

    No meta description, so Google writes its own snippet from whatever text it finds.

  • Title is short (27 characters)

    Your title is only 27 characters: “Home | Ward and Smith, P.A.”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.

  • Open Graph partly set

    Open Graph is missing og:description, so shared links fall back to guesses.

  • 42 internal links, 16 external

    The homepage links to 42 pages on wardandsmith.com and 16 external pages.

5 checks passed
  • One H1 headline

    Your main headline reads: “Our Attorneys Bring []”.

  • Canonical URL set

    The canonical URL is https://www.wardandsmith.com/.

  • Structured data in place

    Structured data found: LawFirm and WebSite.

  • 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.wardandsmith.com/sitemap.

AI search readiness

1 to fix83
  • 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.wardandsmith.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.

1 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.

Other pages

1 to fix95
  • 7 pages without a meta description

    https://www.wardandsmith.com/our-team, https://www.wardandsmith.com/practice-areas, https://www.wardandsmith.com/careers, https://www.wardandsmith.com/news-insights, https://www.wardandsmith.com/locations and https://www.wardandsmith.com/events and 1 other have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.

  • 15 internal pages checked

    We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 33 found) and read each the way a search engine does.

6 checks passed
  • Linked pages load

    7 pages of 15 loaded without an error (the rest turned automated requests away).

  • Canonical URLs point to themselves

    No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.

  • 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 7 pages that loaded have a <title>.

Best practices

1 to fixGoogle 10092
  • 2 JavaScript errors while loading

    2 errors were logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 429 ()”.

1 checks passed
  • Mobile viewport set

    The page declares a mobile viewport.

Content and conversion

3 to fix75
  • 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.

  • Local business without LocalBusiness data

    Your homepage shows a street address but no LocalBusiness JSON-LD, so Google and AI assistants have to guess your address, hours and phone from the page text.

  • Only about 15 words

    The homepage has only about 15 words of visible text; thin pages give Google and first-time buyers little to go on.

  • No opening hours

    The homepage shows no opening hours. If customers visit or call, show when.

  • No form on the homepage

    There is no form on the homepage, so every lead has to click through to another page first.

  • No map or directions link

    There is no link to Google or Apple Maps. A directions link is one tap for a phone visitor.

  • 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.

5 checks passed
  • 3 calls to action

    The homepage has 3 calls to action, for example “Contact Us” and “Sign Up Today”.

  • Social proof on the page

    Social proof on the homepage: 2 testimonial or review blocks and 7 customer or partner logos.

  • Analytics in place

    Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager.

  • Direct contact links

    Visitors can reach you directly: 1 phone link and 0 email links.

  • Phone number on the homepage

    Your phone number is on the homepage as a tap-to-call link.

Privacy and tracking

  • 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.

1 checks passed
  • No known trackers before consent

    No known advertising or analytics trackers load before a visitor clicks anything (measured from a US location before any click).

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 wardandsmith.com, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.

Upkeep, stack and company

Stack

CMS
WordPress
Framework
jQuery
Analytics
Google Tag Manager
Hosting
AWS

Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info

Go beyond the website

What your $25 Growth Playbook adds

This review found 20 issues on wardandsmith.com, including 8 speed issues, 2 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

By continuing you agree to the Terms and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

Free requests are written in the order they come in, so it can take a while. Pay $25 and yours is ready within a few hours. Either way you get a shareable link and a PDF.

  • No subscription
  • Free, or $25 to skip the line
  • Money-back guarantee

14-day money-back guarantee: not happy for any reason, email us within 14 days and we refund in full.

Get the full playbook · $25