Sample audit

This is the full report. Get one for your page.

A made-up site, so you can judge the report before you pay.

$19 full report · one time

Start with a free grade of your page. If it looks fair, get the full report for $19.

No login. No tracking pixel. Public pages only.

SiteRevenue · page file

Sample file. Illustrative: acme-example.com is fictional, and dollar ranges are estimates for prioritizing, not guarantees.

Sample audit · One public URL · Increase trial signups · Audit date: 2026-08-01

This is what the file looks like.

acme-example.com

Solid bones, clear revenue leaks in the conversion path.

Improved since v1: grade D → B

This page is asking for

Start a free trial of an AI leak auditor · quoted: “Start free trial”

Action plan

Three moves to ship first. Re-audit after to see the grade move.

1
Make “Start free trial” the only filled button; demote “Talk to sales” to text
Effort S~15 minFixes finding 1
2
Add one-line pricing near the hero CTA (“starts at $49”)
Effort S~10 minFixes finding 2
3
Reorder the trial form: email → password → optional company
Effort S~20 minFixes finding 5

Findings

3 High2 Medium2 Low

1HighCTAEffort S

Dual primary CTAs split the money click

Est. impact: $1,200–$3,600/moWhy CTA matters

What we saw: Hero shows filled “Start free trial” and filled “Talk to sales” side-by-side; both use primary weight. Two equal visual weights above the fold.
Fix: One filled trial CTA. Demote “Talk to sales” to text link or ghost. Measure trial-start CTR for 2 weeks. Highest leverage on trial-start CTR

RewriteBeforeAfter

Primary CTA pair

Before: BeforeStart free trial · Talk to sales (equal filled weight)

After: AfterGet my free grade → · Talk to sales (text link)

Why. One filled money path. Demotes sales to secondary so trial/grade starts stop competing for attention.

See the wireframe

Wireframe of sample hero showing two equal primary CTAs annotated as a conflict — Wireframe mock · dual filled CTAs (“Start free trial” + “Talk to sales”) with equal weight above the fold

2HighOfferEffort S

No urgency or pricing anchor above the fold

Est. impact: $600–$1,800/moWhy Offer matters

What we saw: The pricing page requires two clicks to reach from the hero. No pricing signal (even “starts at $49”) appears above fold.
Fix: Add a one-line pricing mention near the primary CTA. Visitors exit to compare before understanding value. Cuts comparison-exit before value lands

See the wireframe

Wireframe of hero CTA with annotation that pricing anchor is missing — Wireframe mock · primary CTA with no pricing signal; pricing is two clicks away

3HighMessage matchEffort M

Hero promise and form outcome disagree

Est. impact: $800–$2,400/moWhy Message match matters

What we saw: H1: “AI that finds revenue leaks.” Form eyebrow: “Book a product tour.” Paid traffic arrives on insight promise, lands on calendar ask.
Fix: Align form to the ad/hero job: “Get your free leak score” or keep tour but change H1 to meeting-led language. One job per page.

RewriteBeforeAfter

Hero headline

Before: BeforeAI that finds revenue leaks.

After: AfterFind the revenue leaks on your site in 60 seconds.

Form eyebrow

Before: BeforeBook a product tour

After: AfterGet your free leak score

Why. Hero, ad and form now promise the same job: a free grade.

4MediumProofEffort S

Testimonials appear below the pricing section

Est. impact: $400–$1,200/moWhy Proof matters

What we saw: Social proof is located three scrolls below the hero. First proof appears late in the decision path.
Fix: Move one testimonial directly under the CTA; add 4–6 logos in the decision band. Trust in the decision band, not three scrolls down

See the wireframe

Wireframe mock · decision band under CTA has no logos or testimonials

5MediumFormEffort S

Trial form requests company name before email

Est. impact: $300–$900/moWhy Form matters

What we saw: Field order creates cognitive load before commitment. Company before email raises drop-off.
Fix: Reorder: email first → password → optional company. Removes one decision before micro-commitment

See the wireframe

Wireframe of trial form with company field before email annotated as friction — Wireframe mock · trial form asks company name before work email

6LowNo security badge near checkout

TrustEffort SWhy Trust matters

What we saw: Footer says “Enterprise-grade security” with no SOC2, SSO, or DPA links.
Fix: Add a compact trust strip: SOC 2 type II · SSO · DPA on request — with links to real docs.

7LowMobile CTA button clipped at 375px viewport

MobileEffort MWhy Mobile matters

What we saw: Fixed bottom bar is 72px with two buttons; on iOS Safari it stacks under the URL bar when scrolling up.
Fix: Single sticky primary; 44px min height; respect safe-area-inset-bottom. Stops clipped dual-button bar on iOS Safari

Scorecard

Eight conversion modules, each scored 0–10. Higher is better: 0–4 Poor, 5–8 Needs work, 9–10 Good.

HeroNeeds work6/10
CTAPoor4/10
Message matchNeeds work6/10
OfferNeeds work6/10
ProofNeeds work6/10
FormNeeds work6/10
TrustNeeds work8/10
MobileNeeds work7/10

Hero has no finding: the promise is readable, but outcome and time-to-value stay vague in the first screen.

Basics

Ten open checks from the free rubric, in its fixed order. They don’t change the grade.

Passindexablemeta robots: none; X-Robots-Tag: none
Passhttps-finalhttps://acme-example.com/, 0 hop(s)
Passviewport-meta"width=device-width, initial-scale=1"
Passtitle-length"Acme Example finds leaks" (24 chars)
Failcanonical"/pricing" vs final host acme-example.com
Failmeta-description"Too short to be a snippet." (26 chars)
Failog-shareog:title="Acme Example"; og:image=missing
PassScripts that slow the first load: 1
N/Aimg-alt0 <img> counted (2 marked decorative, excluded)
Failjson-ld0 block(s); first @type: None

Rubric: /rubric/v1.md

Appendix

Message match Ad headline against the landing page

Ad copy vs. landing page headline — does your traffic land on the promise it was sold?

Why Message Match matters

Mismatch detected

Google Ad Headline

"Find Revenue Leaks in Your Site — AI audit in 60 seconds"

Landing Page H1

"AI that finds revenue leaks."

Form eyebrow: Book a product tour

The ad promises insight delivery ("Find revenue leaks") but the form asks for a meeting. One job per page — align the form to the ad's promise or change the ad to set meeting expectations. See finding 3.

Competitors Where rivals do better, quoted

Same eight modules. Quotes from pages we fetched. Fail-open if a rival URL did not load — we do not invent a rival.

rival-example.com

CTA

You: Two filled primaries: trial + sales
Them: One filled “Start free trial”

Rival has one money click above the fold.

rival-example.com

Offer

You: No price near hero
Them: “Starts at $49” under the H1

Price anchor lands before the form.

Export format The Markdown and JSON a paid file downloads

Illustrative wireframe mocks of the sample site (acme-example.com) — each annotation matches the finding below. Not live customer screenshots. Live page files include page captures when a screenshot provider is configured (fail-open; not guaranteed on every job).

This is the Markdown and JSON a paid file downloads. Yours is generated from your URL.

How to read this report How re-audits work Copy rewrites that ship Hero clarity

# SiteRevenue Audit — acme-example.com
**Date:** 2026-08-01 | **Letter grade:** B | **Pages:** 1 public URL

## Executive Summary
This site drives paid traffic to a hero promise of "AI that finds revenue leaks" but the primary CTA splits visitor intent...

## Finding 1 · High · CTA Hierarchy
**Title:** Dual primary CTAs split the money click
**Evidence:** Hero shows filled "Start free trial" and filled "Talk to sales" side-by-side...
**Fix:** One filled trial CTA. Demote "Talk to sales" to a text link or ghost button...
**Est. impact:** $1,200–$3,600/mo (illustrative)

## Finding 3 · High · Message match
**Title:** Hero promise and form outcome disagree
**Evidence:** H1: "AI that finds revenue leaks." Form eyebrow: "Book a product tour."...

{
  "audit_id": "sr_sample",
  "url": "acme-example.com",
  "leak_score": 47,
  "date": "2026-08-01",
  "pages": 1,
  "findings": [
    {
      "rank": 1,
      "severity": "high",
      "category": "CTA Hierarchy",
      "title": "Dual primary CTAs split the money click",
      "evidence": "...",
      "fix": "...",
      "impact_est": { "low": 1200, "high": 3600, "currency": "USD/mo", "note": "illustrative" }
    }
  ]
}

Site history Letter grades on this site

Not a product-market-fit score — it's the job the live page is selling.

The timeline illustrates re-audit version history on the same site over time.

Audit your URL

Paste your URL in the box at the top to get your free grade.

Back to the top