Core Web Vitals:
fixed for real, not just for the test tool

Where the money leaks today

A site passes a quick speed test with a good score and still feels slow to a real visitor on a mid-range phone over 4G, because the test ran on a fast connection in a lab, not under the conditions Google’s actual field data captures. A single blocking third-party script, an unoptimised hero image, or a font that loads late and shifts the layout can tank real Core Web Vitals scores while a lab report shows green, which means teams sometimes fix the wrong thing entirely or declare victory too early.

Marketing and analytics tags accumulate over time in a way nobody audits: a heatmap tool added two years ago for a project that ended, a chat widget nobody uses anymore, three different analytics platforms all firing on every page load, each one adding render-blocking weight that nobody notices because no single tag looks like the obvious culprit on its own.

What we do

We test on throttled networks and real device profiles, not just a desktop lab run, to see what an actual visitor experiences. We find and fix the specific causes of a poor Largest Contentful Paint (usually an unoptimised hero image or a blocking script), Cumulative Layout Shift (usually late-loading ads, fonts or embeds without reserved space) and poor interaction responsiveness. Every third-party script gets audited and ranked by actual performance cost, since marketing tags and widgets are a common hidden cause.

We rank every third-party script by actual measured performance cost rather than by assumption, since the tag everyone suspects (usually the biggest, most visible widget) is sometimes fine, while a small, forgotten script nobody thinks about turns out to be the real bottleneck once measured properly.

What we need from you

Access to the live site and ideally a staging environment where fixes can be tested without risk, plus a developer contact if template-level changes are needed and your own team will implement them instead of us. Point us to whoever owns your marketing tag stack, since removing or deferring a script is sometimes a two-minute change and sometimes breaks a reporting pipeline someone relies on, and we would rather check with that person than guess. Staging access matters more here than on most audits, since testing a speed fix on the live site risks the exact experience we are trying to improve.

How we measure

Largest Contentful Paint, Cumulative Layout Shift and Interaction to Next Paint from real field data over the 28-day window Google actually uses, not a single lab score, reported before and after. We report the specific pages that improved versus the ones that did not move, since a site-wide average can hide a template that is still slow even while the overall number looks better, which matters more for conversion than the average, tracked against the real 28-day field window rather than a single lab snapshot taken right after launch.

Price and timeline

Related

Speed work pays back fastest when it happens right after a migration or redesign, since that is when new render-blocking scripts and unoptimised assets get introduced in the first place, which is why we recommend running this check as a standard step after any significant platform or template change rather than waiting for a complaint. This pairs with technical SEO audit for the broader crawl and indexing picture, and with SEO migration without traffic loss when speed issues come from a recent replatform. Full services: SEO and content and development. We hold systems to this field-data level of scrutiny in the analytics warehouse case study. Get in touch with your URL and we will run a real-device check before you pay for anything.