Loading Report View…
0/ 100
check24.de Website Audit Report
check24.de scored 76 out of 100 in this SavageAudit website audit covering Performance, SEO, Design, Copy, User Experience, and Conversion. The report uses captured website evidence to explain what is working, what is limiting the experience, and which improvements deserve attention first.
“Strong engine, embarrassing packaging, and the checkout keeps tripping over itself.”
CHECK24 brought the heavy machinery, then wrapped the hero in consent clutter and called it premium. The site looks like it wants trust, speed, and simplicity, but keeps making each one fight for oxygen.
https://www.check24.de/wohngebaeudeversicherung/
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Performance is basically fine, which is the funniest part: the page hits a 98 performance score, with 1.1 s LCP, 0 CLS, and 100 ms TBT. But it still leaves 126 KiB of unused JavaScript, 81 KiB of unused CSS, 6 long tasks, and a 340 ms root response time on the table like a financial audit that forgot to close the spreadsheet. SEO is held back by an empty meta description, heading skips, and missing alt text, while conversion gets kneecapped by zero CTA texts, three forms, and a cookie banner that steals the first impression before the hero can do its job.
Where It Burns
6 categoriesWebsite Audit Findings for check24.de
SavageAudit identified 37 visible findings and recommendations across 6 audit categories. Each section below combines the category score with observed evidence and prioritized fixes.
9701 PERFORMANCEPerformance score 98/1007302 SEOMeta description empty6703 DESIGNFirst heading level h36704 COPYWord count 4,0548605 UXConsole errors 05806 CONVERSIONCTA count 0
01
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
97
Performance score98/100LCP1.1 sTBT100 msUnused JS126 KiB
- 🔥A 98 performance score with a 1.1 s LCP is the website equivalent of a sports car idling at the curb.
💀
Fast on paper, but still carrying enough dead weight to feel like enterprise indecision.
- →Remove or defer the 126 KiB of unused JavaScript by splitting non-critical modules and loading them after interaction.
- →Trim the 81 KiB of unused CSS with purge tooling and page-specific styles instead of shipping the whole wardrobe.
- →Push the 340 ms root response lower with server caching and edge delivery for the HTML document.
02
SEO AUDIT
73
Meta descriptionemptyHeading skips2Missing alt attributes2Canonicalpresent and matching
- 🔥Your title says 'Wohngebäudeversicherung Vergleich [2026]: ab 4,85 €/mtl.' but the meta description is empty, so search gets the headline and then a blank stare.
💀
Indexed, yes; elegantly explained to search engines, not so much.
- →Write a meta description under 160 characters that includes 'Wohngebäudeversicherung' and the value proposition in the first 60 characters.
- →Fix the heading hierarchy so the page starts at h1 and follows a clean h2 → h3 → h4 sequence with no skips.
- →Add descriptive alt text to the 2 missing-image cases, using the content and intent of each image rather than file-name poetry.
03
DESIGN AUDIT
67
First heading levelh3Total headings41h3 count22Font families9
- 🔥The first heading level starts at h3, which is a brave choice if your goal was to make the page feel accidentally pre-abbreviated.
💀
Visually competent, structurally chaotic, and styled like the browser had to improvise under pressure.
- →Start the content hierarchy with a true h1 and rebalance the section structure so h2s and h3s do actual organizing work.
- →Reduce the font stack to 2–3 families to keep typography intentional instead of historical reenactment.
- →Use heading levels to describe page sections, not to decorate copy blocks that should probably be regular text.
04
COPY AUDIT
67
Word count4,054Sentence count257CTA texts0Citability blocks6
- 🔥The title has '[2026]' and 'ab 4,85 €/mtl.', but the meta description is empty, so the page opens strong and then forgets to introduce itself.
💀
It reads like an insurance white paper that forgot to include a next step.
- →Add a concise meta description that matches the title and promises one clear user outcome.
- →Cut repetitive explanation by consolidating similar claims into tighter benefit-led sections.
- →Insert CTA copy beside the main savings claim and form areas, with specific action verbs like 'Tarife vergleichen' or 'Angebot prüfen'.
05
UX AUDITUSER EXPERIENCE AUDIT
86
Console errors0Broken assets0Long tasks6Navigation elementabsent
- 🔥The page has 0 console errors and 0 broken assets, which is great, because the real problem is 6 long tasks quietly making the interface feel busier than it looks.
💀
Everything technically works, but the journey still feels like it was designed by a very tidy filing cabinet.
- →Break the 6 long tasks into smaller chunks by delaying non-critical scripts and splitting heavy UI work after first paint.
- →Simplify the 3 forms into fewer steps or progressive disclosure so users don’t feel processed by intake.
- →Add a lightweight top-level navigation or in-page jump links so users can escape the hero and reach key sections faster.
06
CONVERSION AUDIT
58
CTA count0Forms3Required inputs4Social proof elements2
- 🔥There are 0 CTA texts and 0 CTA labels, so the page knows how to advertise savings but apparently not how to ask for a click.
💀
It builds trust, then leaves the user alone in the lobby with a clipboard.
- →Add one primary CTA above the fold and repeat it after the savings section with consistent wording.
- →Reduce friction in the 3 forms by removing nonessential required fields and grouping related inputs.
- →Place the 2 social proof elements directly beside the CTA and savings claim so trust supports action instead of floating in the background.
Audit overview
check24.de Audit Summary
Performance is basically fine, which is the funniest part: the page hits a 98 performance score, with 1.1 s LCP, 0 CLS, and 100 ms TBT. But it still leaves 126 KiB of unused JavaScript, 81 KiB of unused CSS, 6 long tasks, and a 340 ms root response time on the table like a financial audit that forgot to close the spreadsheet. SEO is held back by an empty meta description, heading skips, and missing alt text, while conversion gets kneecapped by zero CTA texts, three forms, and a cookie banner that steals the first impression before the hero can do its job.
Based on the category scores in this report, Performance is the strongest area while Conversion has the most room for improvement.
How SavageAudit Evaluated check24.de
SavageAudit evaluated the public website at https://www.check24.de/wohngebaeudeversicherung/ across performance, technical SEO, design, copy, user experience, and conversion signals. Scores and recommendations reflect the website evidence available when this audit was generated on April 22, 2026.
Similar Website Audit Reports
Compare this result with other public SavageAudit reports that received a similar overall website score.