Skip to main content
Roast by AI Roast By AI

attestly.dev

https://attestly.dev/

Completed

Curious how yours stacks up?

attestly.dev scored 66/100. Where would your site land?

66

Overall Score

Attestly is a sharp, well-designed compliance tool with an excellent value proposition and clean design execution—but it's bleeding performance issues and leaving money on the table with weak SEO and conversion optimization.

🔥

The Roast

Attestly's website is like a compliance tool that doesn't follow its own rules: it's gorgeous, clever, and tells a compelling story, but the SEO score of 0 is basically screaming 'we built this for engineers, not humans.' The 86 mobile performance score is respectable until you realize they're carrying around 96ms of unused JavaScript like dead weight in a code audit. It's the digital equivalent of preaching perfect code hygiene while leaving the dev tools open.

🎯 Start Here

🔍 SEO
12/100
🔒 Trust Signals
61/100
Accessibility
64/100

Google PageSpeed Insights

(Real metrics from Google)

These scores come directly from Google's PageSpeed API. The AI scores above evaluate broader aspects like copy, trust signals, and conversion.

86
Performance

Core Web Vitals

3.8s
LCP
Largest Contentful Paint
0.00
CLS
Cumulative Layout Shift
96ms
TBT
Total Blocking Time
🔍 12

SEO

🔒 61

Trust Signals

64

Accessibility

🎯 71

Conversion

72

Performance

📱 79

Mobile

🎨 82

Design & UX

📝 88

Copy & Messaging

🔍

SEO

12/100

This is a catastrophic SEO failure—score of 0 suggests completely missing schema markup, broken heading hierarchy, or structural issues that Lighthouse is flagging; the website is essentially invisible to search engines despite having solid on-page elements.

Issues Found

  • SEO score of 0 indicates missing schema markup (Product, Organization, FAQ schema would be critical for a B2B SaaS product), or broken heading structure
  • No external links mentioned in crawl data—zero authority-building link strategy visible
  • Meta description and OG tags are identical, suggesting copy-paste—missing optimization for different audiences (LinkedIn vs. Google)

Recommendations

  • Implement structured data markup high

    Add JSON-LD schema for Organization, Product (with pricing/reviews), and FAQ sections to improve search visibility and rich snippet eligibility.

  • Build strategic external linking high

    Create partnerships with compliance blogs, DevOps resources, and AI governance publications to earn authority backlinks; internal linking structure appears weak.

  • Optimize meta & OG variations medium

    Create unique meta descriptions and OG tags for different audiences (Compliance Officers vs. DevOps Engineers vs. CTOs) and test on LinkedIn/Twitter.

🔒

Trust Signals

61/100

Website has some credibility markers (tech partner logos, specific feature callouts) but relies too heavily on the product itself as proof—missing customer testimonials, case studies, or third-party security certifications that enterprise buyers demand.

Issues Found

  • 'Built with the best technologies' section shows Vercel, Clerk, Stripe, Segment—these are tech credibility signals but don't prove Attestly's compliance competence
  • No customer testimonials, case studies, or usage metrics visible (e.g., '500+ compliance reports generated')—missing social proof that drives enterprise conversion
  • No security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001), compliance badges, or data residency callouts visible—critical for a compliance product selling to risk-averse buyers

Recommendations

  • Add compliance certifications section high

    Prominently display SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance, or other relevant certifications in a dedicated trust section (ideally above the fold in footer or sidebar).

  • Feature customer testimonials & metrics high

    Add 2-3 customer quotes (with company logos) and key metrics ('Trusted by 300+ SaaS companies, 10M+ compliance reports generated') to the middle of the page.

  • Create a case study carousel medium

    Add a simple section featuring 2-3 customer success stories with quantified outcomes (e.g., 'Reduced audit prep time by 15 hours/quarter') to build credibility.

Accessibility

64/100

Good ARIA implementation (38 attributes) and all images have alt text, but the missing skip link and weak landmark structure suggest accessibility was an afterthought, not a first-class feature.

Issues Found

  • No skip-to-main-content link visible—users relying on keyboard navigation must tab through nav items before reaching content
  • Only 4 landmarks (nav, main, footer, header) for a multi-section page—section landmarks should wrap major content areas for better screen reader navigation
  • No mention of keyboard focus indicators or outline styling; contrast ratios not provided in data, but light teal background with gray text is a potential concern

Recommendations

  • Add skip-to-main-content link high

    Implement a visually hidden skip link that appears on focus and jumps keyboard users directly to the main content area, bypassing navigation.

  • Enhance landmark structure medium

    Wrap each major section (hero, how-it-works, what-it-generates, etc.) in semantic <section> tags with descriptive aria-labels for better NVDA/JAWS navigation.

  • Verify color contrast ratios medium

    Run WCAG contrast checker on all text-background combinations, especially the teal hero section; ensure all text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for normal text).

🎯

Conversion

71/100

Primary CTA is visible and action-oriented, but conversion funnel is weak—no email capture, limited urgency mechanisms, and the secondary CTA ('See a sample') might actually cannibalize signups rather than nurture them.

Issues Found

  • Only two CTAs visible in hero: 'Connect your repo' (primary) and 'See a sample trust center' (secondary)—the secondary might reduce primary CTA click-through by offering a low-commitment alternative
  • No email capture mechanism, waitlist, or value exchange before asking for GitHub connection—high friction for cold traffic
  • Missing urgency signals: no 'limited time' language, social proof (user count, trust badges), or time-sensitive offers visible in hero

Recommendations

  • Restructure secondary CTA strategy high

    Move 'See a sample' from hero to a dedicated section below; replace with benefit statement or social proof in hero to reduce CTA split.

  • Add email capture flow high

    Introduce a 'See live example' modal that captures email before showing the demo, allowing nurture sequences for visitors not ready to connect GitHub.

  • Inject urgency & social proof medium

    Add trust signals like 'Trusted by 200+ SaaS companies' and a compliance deadline callout ('EU AI Act deadline: 10 months away') to amplify CTA appeal.

Performance

72/100

Mobile performance is respectable at 86, but 96ms of Total Blocking Time and unused JavaScript suggest the site is carrying dead weight that could be trimmed—LCP at 3.8s is acceptable but not snappy.

Issues Found

  • 96ms TBT is significant; indicates JavaScript parsing/execution is blocking user interaction during load
  • Unused JavaScript flagged but not quantified—likely bloated dependencies or third-party scripts that aren't earning their bytes
  • LCP of 3.8s is over the Google Core Web Vitals 'good' threshold of 2.5s, suggesting image optimization or server-side delays

Recommendations

  • Audit and defer unused JavaScript high

    Use Lighthouse to identify unused JS bundles, defer non-critical scripts, and consider tree-shaking or code-splitting to reduce TBT below 50ms.

  • Optimize LCP images high

    The hero section and trust center mockup are likely LCP culprits—serve WebP with fallbacks, implement lazy loading for below-fold assets, and consider Next.js Image optimization.

  • Minimize third-party scripts medium

    Audit analytics, chat widgets, and other third-party tools; load them asynchronously or via facade patterns to prevent render-blocking.

📱

Mobile

79/100

Mobile layout is clean and responsive with good touch target sizing on CTAs, but the hero headline wraps awkwardly and the trust center mockup becomes difficult to parse on small screens.

Issues Found

  • Hero H1 wraps into 4+ lines on 375px viewport, creating visual clutter and reduced scanning efficiency
  • Trust center mockup is cramped on mobile and loses visual hierarchy—the numbered stats and AI inventory become hard to parse at small sizes
  • Navigation menu doesn't show a hamburger icon in screenshot; unclear if mobile nav is properly hidden/toggled

Recommendations

  • Simplify mobile headline medium

    Rewrite hero H1 for mobile to be shorter and break into 2-3 lines cleanly (e.g., 'Code-synced compliance that never lies').

  • Stack trust center sections vertically medium

    On mobile, convert the 4-column stats grid to full-width stacked cards; reduce font size slightly and prioritize key metrics (AI systems, Subprocessors).

  • Confirm mobile navigation UX low

    Ensure hamburger menu is clearly visible, accessible via keyboard, and collapses nav links into a proper off-canvas or dropdown drawer.

🎨

Design & UX

82/100

Clean, modern design with excellent visual hierarchy and a smart use of whitespace that guides the eye naturally from problem to solution—though the desktop mockup in the hero could be more prominent given how well it communicates the value.

Issues Found

  • Hero section has slightly awkward text wrapping on the H1 ('so it never lies about your' breaks across three lines awkwardly)
  • Trust center mockup is small on desktop—it's the best visual proof point but gets relegated to a supporting role
  • Limited visual contrast between sections; some subsections blend together making vertical scrolling less scannable

Recommendations

  • Enlarge the Trust Center mockup in hero medium

    Make the sample trust center mockup at least 40% larger and more visually prominent since it's the strongest visual demonstration of the product's value.

  • Refine H1 line breaks low

    Adjust the hero headline to break more naturally—consider restructuring to avoid the awkward 'your' orphan at line end.

  • Add subtle section dividers low

    Introduce thin color-coded dividers or background shifts between major sections to improve scrolling clarity and visual navigation.

📝

Copy & Messaging

88/100

Messaging is punchy, problem-focused, and uses specific pain points that resonate deeply with the target audience—the 'lawyers draft, engineers ship' section is genuinely clever and relatable.

Issues Found

  • The subheading 'Automated, engineer-built compliance that syncs directly with your codebase' is technical but could emphasize business outcomes more (e.g., save 10+ hours/deal)
  • Call-to-action 'Connect your repo' is descriptive but less emotionally compelling than alternatives like 'Start auto-generating compliance'
  • Missing benefit-driven copy on the 'What it generates' section—cards describe features but not outcomes (e.g., 'Cut audit prep time from weeks to minutes')

Recommendations

  • Quantify hero benefit statement high

    Add a supporting benefit line under the H1 like 'Skip 10+ hours of manual security questionnaires per deal' to anchor the value proposition in concrete ROI.

  • Outcome-driven feature descriptions medium

    Rewrite the 'What it generates' section cards to lead with outcomes ('Get compliance-ready in minutes' vs. 'AI Trust Center hosted page').

  • Strengthen primary CTA language medium

    Test 'Start Free' or 'Auto-Generate Compliance' instead of 'Connect your repo'—less jargon, more action-oriented.

Think you can beat 66/100?

Get your site brutally analyzed by the same AI. 8 scores, a punch list of fixes, 60 seconds.