Pass the audit before Google runs it.
Core Web Vitals are a confirmed ranking signal, and most sites fail at least one without knowing it. We run the crawl, the real-user CrUX data, and the schema check most audits skip — then hand you a fix list ranked by what actually moves traffic, not a wall of red Lighthouse scores.
The Airbyte figures are from our own technical SEO + performance engagement, detailed on the case studies page: a crawl and render audit, schema retrofit across templates, and Core Web Vitals work that shipped LCP under 2.5s and INP under 200ms on every primary template. The 75th-percentile figure is the standard Google itself grades against — not a claim we're making up.
The 4-week audit.
A source-grade diagnostic, not a scored checklist. Every finding traced to a cause and ranked by the traffic it actually touches.
Crawl + render audit
Full site crawl and render pass: indexation gaps, crawl-budget waste, orphaned pages, canonical errors, and render-blocking resources — the technical floor everything else stands on.
Core Web Vitals pass, per template
CrUX field data pulled per template (not per page — a slow product template affects every product page at once). Every LCP, INP, and CLS blocker identified and named, not just flagged red.
Schema + structured data retrofit plan
Article, Service, FAQPage, BreadcrumbList — validated, not assumed. Half-implemented schema confuses engines more than none at all, and we check for that specifically.
Prioritized fix list, ranked by traffic impact
Not every failing metric matters equally if the page barely gets visited. We order fixes by the traffic and revenue they actually touch, so engineering time goes to what moves rankings first.
Platform-specific scoping
WordPress and other dynamically-rendered sites get caching, CDN, and theme work scoped as its own line item — it's a genuinely different kind of engineering than a static-site fix, and we budget it that way instead of folding it into content work.
Retest + verification pass
Fixes get re-measured against the same CrUX and PageSpeed baselines the audit opened with, so 'done' means the number actually moved, not that a ticket was closed.
Four weeks, week by week.
Crawl, render, and CrUX baseline
Full technical crawl plus real-user Core Web Vitals data pulled per template — the number Google actually scores you on, not a single lab run.
Diagnosis
Every failing metric traced to its actual cause: the specific script, image, font, or query responsible — not a generic 'optimize images' line item.
Prioritized fix list
Ordered by traffic impact and engineering effort, split cleanly between what your team ships and what needs a platform-level fix (caching, CDN, theme).
Handoff + retest plan
A scoped document your engineers can execute against, plus the retest cadence to confirm each fix actually moved the CrUX number.
This audit assumes you can ship the fixes.
The deliverable is a prioritized diagnosis and fix list, not engineering hours — you need a developer or dev team (in-house or contracted) who can act on it. If your site has no content or topical-authority problem and traffic is already strong, a technical audit alone won't move the needle much further; that's a case for the GEO sprint or a content engagement instead. And if you're pre-launch with no live traffic yet, there's no CrUX field data to audit against — come back once real users have been hitting the site for a few weeks.
The technical SEO library.
Core Web Vitals in 2026: the technical SEO audit most sites fail
The three metrics, the real thresholds, and why WordPress sites lose by default.
How SEO actually works in 2026: the GEO-aware playbook
The full 2026 playbook, including the technical non-negotiables this audit checks first.
Programmatic SEO in 2026: scale without getting demoted
Where the line sits between crawl budget that scales and crawl budget that gets a site demoted.
GEO / AI-Search Optimization service page
The layer on top of this audit — getting cited inside ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews.
Common questions.
What's the difference between a Lighthouse score and a Core Web Vitals pass?+
Lighthouse is one lab run on one machine — useful for iterating on a fix, worthless as a final verdict. Core Web Vitals are graded at the 75th percentile of real Chrome users over a rolling 28-day window (CrUX data), which is what Google's ranking systems actually use. A page can pass Lighthouse clean and still fail its real Core Web Vitals assessment because the real-user distribution — slower phones, weaker connections — tells a different story than the lab test. This audit is built on CrUX field data first, Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights second, for exactly that reason.
Do you guarantee a ranking improvement?+
No, and no agency honestly can — Core Web Vitals are a confirmed ranking signal but a tiebreaker, not a trump card. A fast page with thin content still loses to a more relevant, more authoritative competitor. What the audit guarantees is a specific, prioritized, traffic-ranked fix list and a retest pass confirming the metrics actually moved. Where CWV becomes decisive is the matchup that happens constantly in any competitive niche: pages of comparable relevance and authority, where the faster one wins the tiebreak.
We're on WordPress — is this audit still useful?+
Yes, and it matters more. The platform you're on is a bigger predictor of Core Web Vitals pass/fail than almost anything your content team does — no PHP execution or database round-trip on a static build, versus a plugin stack running on every WordPress page load. That means WordPress sites usually need real engineering work (a caching layer, an image CDN, a plugin or theme audit) rather than a quick fix, and we scope that work as its own line item in the deliverables rather than pretending it's free.
How long does the audit take?+
Four weeks: baseline crawl and CrUX data in week one, root-cause diagnosis in week two, a prioritized fix list in week three, handoff and a retest plan in week four. See the timeline below for what happens each week.
What happens after the audit?+
Most engagements use the fix list as the scope for either an in-house engineering sprint or our own follow-on work. If the audit surfaces a broader gap — thin content, no citation-shaped structure for AI engines — that's usually when we scope a GEO sprint or content engagement on top of the technical floor this audit establishes.
Is this the same as the SEO + GEO Audit on the services page?+
This page is the technical-audit engagement in full detail — the same 4-week diagnostic listed as "SEO + GEO Audit" on /services/, focused specifically on the crawl, render, and Core Web Vitals layer. If you also want live citation testing across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Claude as part of the same engagement, mention it when you reach out and we'll scope both together.
Start the technical audit.
4-week diagnostic, fix list ranked by traffic impact. No commitment · <24h reply.
Start a technical audit →