Website review, no card needed
woehr.de website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 22 October 202632 issues · 78 checks
This review found 32 issues worth fixing on woehr.de, 10 of them high impact, across 78 checks. The most urgent: fails Core Web Vitals for real visitors. 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
86BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.6 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.7 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.5 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 85 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 80 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 80 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 80 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 88 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 87 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 79 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 79 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 81 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 80 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 81 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 82 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 84 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
750 ms2 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 750 ms.
Improve image delivery
576 KiB16 images could be 576 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Use efficient cache lifetimes
150 ms · 227 KiB16 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (227 KiB).
Reduce unused CSS
150 ms · 13 KiBAbout 13 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.
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.
3 checks passed
Mobile performance score: 94
94/100Your mobile performance score is 94 (desktop: 90). That is in Google's “good” band (90 and up).
Main-thread work: 0.6 s
A phone's processor spends 0.6 s on main-thread work while loading, 120 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 112 ms
112 msYour server sent the HTML in 112 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: 905 ms
905 msReal visitors wait 905 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Largest Contentful Paint: 2.8 s
2.8 sYour largest element takes 2.8 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image “Cars are parked in a car parking system”.
Speed Index: 3.7 s
3.7 sVisually, the page fills in at 3.7 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
6 images without width and height
6 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
+1%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 85 ms to 84 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
-2%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.6 s to 1.5 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
8 checks passed
Real-user LCP: 1.5 s
1.5 sReal visitors wait 1.5 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 83 ms
83 msReal visitors wait 83 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.00
0.00For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Real-user FCP: 1.2 s
1.2 sReal visitors see the first content after 1.2 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
First Contentful Paint: 1.4 s
1.4 sThe first text or image appears after 1.4 s, inside the 1.8 s “good” threshold.
Time to Interactive: 2.8 s
2.8 sThe page is fully interactive after 2.8 s.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.015
0.015The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.015, good is under 0.1).
Total Blocking Time: 0 ms
0 msScripts block the page for only 0 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Images and page weight
Page weight: 2.7 MB in 87 requests
2.7 MBYour homepage downloads 2.7 MB in 87 requests on a phone: images 2.5 MB (77), fonts 167 KiB (3) and scripts 62 KiB (4). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
40 images in older formats
40 images (1.9 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.
14 images below the first screen load straight away
14 images further down the page (760 KiB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
7 images far larger than shown
21 KiB7 images are downloaded at several times the size a phone draws them, for example woehr-combilift-542-parksystem-turley-mannheim-ubersicht-luf at 500 px wide, shown at 163 px. Resized copies would save about 21 KiB.
About 0.8 g of CO₂ per visit
0.78 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.78 g of CO₂e: 93.2 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 be contained by particular parents (3 elements)
Certain ARIA roles must be contained by particular parents: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.
Form elements must have labels (3 elements)
Form elements must have labels: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.
1 button without a name
1 button has no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
2 text elements with low contrast
2 text elements don't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
Interactive controls must not be nested (2 elements)
Interactive controls must not be nested: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated serious by axe-core.
1 image without alt text
1 image has no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (34 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 34 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
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.
1 link without text
1 visible link has no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where it goes.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h1 → h3), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
43 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 53 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 43 passed and 10 failed. 1 more need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
Structured data has 7 problems
Structured data found (BreadcrumbList, ImageObject, Page and WebPage) but with 7 problems, for example “ImageObject: contentUrl is not an absolute URL ("https://woehr.de/assets/images/e/woehr-efficiency-calculator-2-11c…”.
No social preview image
No Open Graph image, so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.
1 link with vague text
1 link use generic text like “click here” or “learn more”, which tells Google nothing about the page behind it.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
143 internal links, 8 external
The homepage links to 143 pages on woehr.de and 8 external pages.
5 checks passed
Meta description: 150 characters
Your meta description is 150 characters: “WÖHR Autoparksysteme GmbH is one of the leading manufacturers of parking systems: Double parkers, duplex garages and ot…”.
One H1 headline
Your main headline reads: “WÖHR Autoparksysteme GmbH – One of the international leading manufacturers of space saving car parking systems”.
Title: 32 characters
Your title is a healthy 32 characters: “Home - WÖHR Autoparksysteme GmbH”.
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://woehr.de/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://woehr.de/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 (2,309 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
1 linked page is broken
Your homepage links to https://woehr.de/en/en, which answers with an error. Visitors hit a dead end and search engines drop it.
2 pages share a meta description
https://woehr.de/en/legal-info.html and https://woehr.de/en/privacy-policy.html use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 78 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
6 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 14 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 14 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
5 small tap targets
5 of 10 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
8 distorted images
8 images are displayed at the wrong aspect ratio, so they look stretched or squashed.
1 low-resolution image
1 image is served at too low a resolution for sharp phone screens.
2 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
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 social proof
No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.
No analytics detected
No analytics or tag manager detected in the HTML, so you can't measure whether any of these fixes work.
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 687 words of copy
The homepage carries about 687 words of visible text.
3 checks passed
3 calls to action
The homepage has 3 calls to action, for example “Contact” and “Contact form”.
1 short form
A short form (1 field at most) is right on the homepage.
Direct contact links
Visitors can reach you directly: 2 phone links and 0 email links.
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 woehr.de, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- CMS
- Contao Open Source CMS
- Framework
- jQuery
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 32 issues on woehr.de, including 7 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.