About Website SEO Analyzer — Meta Tags, Performance, and Accessibility Audit
Your landing page loads in 4.2 seconds on mobile and you don't know why — is it the 1.8MB of unoptimized images, the six render-blocking stylesheets, the 920ms TTFB from your origin server, or the JavaScript bundle that's executing before the DOM is ready? The Website Analyzer audits any public URL across four categories — performance, SEO, accessibility, and security — and sorts issues by their impact on your overall score. Each issue includes a specific fix recommendation and estimated effort level, so you can prioritize the changes that move the needle most. The metrics measured (LCP, INP, CLS, TTFB) are the same ones Google uses as ranking signals.
How to Use This Tool
Follow these simple steps to get accurate results in seconds. The whole process takes less than a minute for most inputs.
- 1
Enter the URL
Paste the full URL of the page you want to audit, including `https://`. The analyzer can only access publicly available pages.
- 2
Start the Audit
Click Analyze. The tool fetches the page and runs the multi-category scan, which typically takes 10-30 seconds depending on page size and server response time.
- 3
Review Category Scores
Check the performance, accessibility, SEO, and best practices scores. The lowest score indicates the area that needs the most improvement.
- 4
Read the Prioritized Fix List
Browse the issue list sorted by impact. Each item includes a specific recommendation and effort level. Start with the high-impact, low-effort fixes.
- 5
Implement and Re-Audit
Fix the highest-impact issues, deploy the changes, then re-run the audit to measure the improvement. Iterate until your scores meet your targets.
How It Works
The technical details of how this tool processes your input and produces accurate results.
Page Fetch and Resource Inventory
The analyzer fetches the target URL and inventories all loaded resources: HTML document size, CSS files, JavaScript bundles, images, fonts, and third-party scripts. Each resource is measured for transfer size, load timing, and render-blocking status. The document's DOM structure is analyzed for heading hierarchy, meta tag coverage, canonical links, and structured data markup.
Multi-Category Scoring and Issue Detection
The inventory feeds into four scoring engines. Performance scoring measures Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), TTFB, total page weight, and render-blocking resource counts. SEO scoring checks meta tags (title, description, Open Graph, Twitter Cards), heading structure (single H1, logical hierarchy), canonical tags, robots directives, and structured data validity. Accessibility scoring checks contrast ratios, missing alt text, ARIA labels, and semantic HTML usage. Security scoring checks for HTTPS redirect, HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and other security headers.
Impact Sorting and Recommendation Generation
Detected issues are scored by their estimated impact on the category score and sorted descending. Each issue receives a specific fix recommendation (e.g., "Add width and height attributes to the hero image to prevent layout shift" rather than "optimize CLS") and an effort level estimate (low, medium, high). The result is a prioritized action list where the top items produce the largest score improvements for the least effort.
Key Features
Built to handle real workflows quickly and accurately. Each feature solves a specific problem you'd otherwise need multiple tools or manual steps to address.
Core Web Vitals Measurement
Measures LCP (Largest Contentful Paint), INP (Interaction to Next Paint), and CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) — the three metrics Google uses as ranking signals — alongside total page weight and render-blocking resource counts.
Four-Category Scoring
Performance, accessibility, SEO, and best practices each receive independent scores. Identify which area needs the most attention at a glance.
Impact-Sorted Fix List
Issues ranked by their effect on your overall score, with specific fix recommendations and effort level estimates. Focus on the changes that deliver the biggest improvement first.
Security Header Audit
Checks for HTTPS redirect, HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy headers — missing headers are ranked by exploitation risk.
Technology Stack Detection
Identifies the CMS, CDN, analytics tools, JavaScript frameworks, and server software running on the page — useful for understanding how the tech stack contributes to performance characteristics.
Benefits of Using Website SEO Analyzer — Meta Tags, Performance, and Accessibility Audit
Why this tool matters and how it improves your daily work.
Impact Sorting Tells You What to Fix First
A Lighthouse JSON report lists 47 issues but doesn't tell you which three fixes will take your performance score from 42 to 78. The impact-sorted fix list puts "optimize the 1.8MB hero image" above "add rel=preconnect for Google Fonts" because the image contributes 40% of page weight while the preconnect saves 50ms of connection time.
Four Categories in One Scan, Not Four Separate Tools
Running PageSpeed Insights for performance, Lighthouse for accessibility, Screaming Frog for SEO, and SecurityHeaders.com for headers means four separate tools, four report formats, and no unified prioritization. One scan produces a single sorted list across all categories.
Specific Fix Recommendations, Not Generic Advice
Instead of "optimize images," the fix says "compress hero-banner.jpg (1.8MB → estimated 200KB with WebP conversion) and add width/height attributes to prevent CLS." Instead of "improve accessibility," it says "add alt text to the 3 images missing descriptions in the product grid." Specific enough to assign as tasks.
Same Metrics Google Uses for Ranking
LCP, INP, and CLS are Core Web Vitals — Google's actual ranking signals. Improving your CLS from 0.25 to 0.05 can meaningfully affect search rankings, especially on mobile where Google uses mobile-first indexing. The analyzer measures exactly these metrics, not proxy metrics that don't correlate with ranking impact.
Common Use Cases
Real scenarios where this tool saves time and produces better results than manual methods.
Pre-Launch Audit for New Sites and Features
Run a comprehensive audit before deploying a new site or major feature. Catch the 920ms TTFB, the missing Content-Security-Policy header, and the three images without alt text before your users and Google's crawler find them first.
Client-Facing Reports with Quantified Scores
Generate audit reports with specific scores and prioritized fix lists that justify technical recommendations with numbers instead of subjective opinions. "Performance score: 34/100. Top fix: optimize the 1.8MB hero image (est. +22 points)." is more convincing than "the site feels slow."
Regression Detection After Deployments
Audit your top landing pages after each deployment to catch regressions. A new JavaScript bundle that adds 400KB of render-blocking code drops your LCP by 1.2 seconds — the analyzer quantifies the exact impact so you can decide whether to roll back or fix forward.
Competitive Benchmarking
Run audits on competitor sites and compare scores. If your competitor's LCP is 1.8s and yours is 3.2s, you know exactly how much ground to make up — and the fix list tells you which changes will close the gap.
Who Uses This Tool
Web Developers Running Pre-Launch Audits
scanning new sites and feature deployments for performance bottlenecks, accessibility gaps, and SEO mistakes before they reach production users and search engine crawlers
Agency Project Managers Creating Client Reports
generating quantified quality reports with scores and prioritized fix lists that justify technical recommendations with numbers instead of subjective opinions
E-Commerce Store Owners Diagnosing Slow Pages
identifying why product pages load slowly or rank poorly by running the analyzer, then handing the specific fix list to their developer or implementing the simpler changes themselves
SEO Specialists Auditing Client Websites
running free website audits to identify SEO issues like missing meta tags, broken heading hierarchy, and poor Core Web Vitals before creating optimization strategies
Common Issues & Fixes
The most frequent problems users encounter and how to fix them quickly.
Analyzer returns 'Failed to fetch' for a site that loads in the browser
Cause: The target site has a strict Content Security Policy (CSP) that blocks cross-origin requests, OR the site requires JavaScript to render its content (single-page apps) and the analyzer's server-side fetch only gets the empty HTML shell. Some sites also block non-browser user agents.
Fix: Try analyzing the site's homepage URL instead of a deep link. If the site is a SPA (React/Vue/Angular), the analyzer can only see the meta tags in the initial HTML — for true SPA analysis, use a tool like Lighthouse in Chrome DevTools. For CSP-blocked sites, you'll need a server-side rendering proxy or accept that some sites can't be analyzed remotely.
LCP / Core Web Vitals not showing in the report
Cause: Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID, INP, CLS) require a real browser to measure — they reflect actual paint timing as the page renders. Server-side analyzers can only estimate these from HTML structure, not measure them. The CrUX (Chrome User Experience Report) API provides real-user data but only for sites with sufficient traffic.
Fix: For accurate Core Web Vitals, use Google PageSpeed Insights (which queries the CrUX API) or run Lighthouse locally in Chrome. The ToolmetryAI analyzer focuses on on-page SEO signals (meta tags, heading hierarchy, broken links) that don't require browser execution.
Broken links checker shows 0 broken but I know there are dead links
Cause: The analyzer only checks links in the initial HTML response, not links added by JavaScript after hydration. It also follows redirects silently — a link to a URL that 301-redirects to a working page shows as 'OK' even though the original URL is technically dead. Some sites also block the analyzer's user agent.
Fix: For SPA-rendered links, use Screaming Frog or Ahrefs Site Audit which execute JavaScript. For thorough link checking, run the analyzer on a sitemap URL list (one page at a time). The analyzer's link checker is intentionally fast — it covers the 80% case rather than being exhaustive.
Meta description shows as missing even though I set it in my CMS
Cause: Three common causes: (1) The meta description is rendered by JavaScript after hydration, so the server-side fetch sees an empty <head>. (2) The CMS uses an Open Graph description tag but no actual <meta name='description'> tag. (3) The page uses a meta description that exceeds 160 characters, which the analyzer flags as 'too long' (not 'missing' but easy to misread).
Fix: View page source (Ctrl+U in Chrome) — if the meta description isn't in the raw HTML, it's JavaScript-rendered and you need to move it server-side. If the OG description exists but not the meta description, add <meta name='description' content='...'> to your page head. Keep it under 155 characters.
Pro Tips
Practical advice to get the most out of this tool, based on how experienced users actually work with it.
Fix performance issues before SEO issues. A fast page with minor SEO problems will outrank a perfectly optimized page that loads slowly — Google uses page speed as a ranking factor, and Core Web Vitals are a direct signal. A 2-second LCP improvement often moves rankings more than fixing every missing alt tag.
Run the analyzer on your top landing pages first, not every page on your site. Improving the three pages that receive 80% of your traffic delivers a bigger ranking and conversion impact than optimizing 50 low-traffic pages. Prioritize by traffic volume, then by score delta.
Re-audit after each round of fixes rather than trying to address everything at once. This iterative approach lets you measure the actual impact of each change and catch regressions early — a fix that improves CLS but worsens LCP is a net problem you'd miss if you deployed all changes simultaneously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Quick answers to the most common questions about this tool. If your question isn't here, contact our support team.