Page speed
Measures server response and HTML loading time from the scan region, then compares those observations with mobile Lighthouse performance data.
Free technical website audit
Website Health Scanner
Enter a public website URL and get a practical repair report for speed, mobile usability, forms, links, SEO basics, and Core Web Vitals.
No account required. The scanner checks public pages only.
Recent scans
No scans saved yet.
Public example | September 26, 2026
A real scan of this website
Before entering your own URL, see how to read an actual result. The scanner scored webhealthscan.com 87/100 after attempting 12 pages. It reached its 12-page crawl limit, so this is a sample, not a claim that every URL was checked. The report contained one warning, two notices, and no critical findings.
- Historical form warning: The earlier scanner flagged an omitted action. That rule was corrected on October 3: native HTML defaults to the current page, and this form uses JavaScript. Submission and delivery still require a real workflow test.
- Mobile notice: Four tables may be too wide. They have their own scroll containers, but a narrow-screen browser check is needed to confirm the whole page stays within the viewport.
- Historical metadata notice: The earlier scanner flagged the imprint's 56-character description. Current rules do not penalize description length alone and exclude intentional
noindexpages from search grading. Padding this legal page would not add visitor value.
Speed, images, buttons, sampled links, and Core Web Vitals passed in this run. A pass describes only the checked sample and date.
Evidence, not promises
We publish the scanner's own audit
On September 26, 2026, the production scanner completed a fresh scan of webhealthscan.com with a score of 87/100 across a 12-page sample. The report included one warning and two notices. Our published review separates those signals from actual failures and shows where a browser check is still needed.
The earlier release was also checked across 50 mobile viewport combinations from 320 to 768 pixels. These are dated observations rather than a permanent quality badge; later results may differ as the service and its dependencies change.
Read the full self-audit and reproduce the scan- Scanner score
- 87 / 100
- Pages attempted
- 12 / 12
- Warnings
- 1
- Notices
- 2
What the audit covers
Eight checks that turn technical signals into repair work
The scanner combines a small same-site crawl with page metadata, asset checks, and mobile PageSpeed data when it is available. Each result explains the signal, its likely impact, and a practical next action.
Image weight
Samples image files for unusually large downloads, missing lazy loading, outdated formats, and missing alternative text.
Forms
Reviews enabled named fields and HTML submit controls. JavaScript behavior, submission, and delivery remain unverified.
Buttons
Looks for important controls that are hidden, empty, or missing readable labels that people and assistive technology can understand.
Mobile layout
Reviews viewport configuration, fixed-width elements, text sizing signals, and relevant mobile usability audits from PageSpeed.
Broken links
Tests a controlled sample of links and reports failed destinations, redirect problems, and pages the crawler could not reach.
Search metadata
Checks page titles, meta descriptions, heading structure, canonical hints, and indexing signals that help search engines interpret a page.
Core Web Vitals
Explains Largest Contentful Paint, Interaction to Next Paint, and Cumulative Layout Shift using field or lab data when available.
From report to repair
Use severity as a starting point, not as a verdict
A critical result points to a strong technical signal, but it still needs human review. Start with failures that block visitors: unreachable pages, broken contact paths, severe mobile layout problems, and very slow loading. Then handle warnings that affect discoverability or repeated page templates.
The repair plan ranks up to five findings by severity. Fix one item, deploy the change, and scan again. A second scan is most useful when it confirms a specific change rather than chasing a perfect score.
Read the step-by-step website repair guidePractical resources
Keep the work moving after the scan
Use these hands-on guides to verify an important visitor journey, diagnose a report finding, and document what changed. They are written to support the scanner, not to inflate a score.
Website repair guidePrioritize fixes for speed, images, mobile layouts, links, and search basics.
Manual audit checklistWork through the essential visitor journey before a launch or redesign.
Contact form testing guideTest a real inquiry from validation through successful delivery.
Core Web Vitals guideSeparate LCP, INP, and CLS problems before changing a template.
Read results correctly
What an automated audit can and cannot prove
It finds reproducible signals
The audit is good at identifying status codes, heavy files, missing metadata, measurable layout hints, and patterns in the pages it crawls. The report records the scan region so network distance is not confused with the visitor experience everywhere in the world.
It does not replace a real inquiry
A form can look technically valid and still fail after submission. A button can exist in the HTML and still be covered by a cookie banner. Always complete a real mobile visit, submit a test inquiry, and review important pages in a browser.
Results are a time-stamped sample
Websites and third-party services change constantly. A crawl covers a limited number of same-site pages and links, so a passing result is useful evidence, not a permanent guarantee for every URL.