GradeMyWeb
Find the website problems nobody tells you about - one scan,
Most website problems don't look like problems. Your site loads fine, everything looks normal. But behind the scenes, your contact form emails are landing in spam. Google can't find half your pages. You're breaking privacy laws in countries you didn't even think about. AI tools can't recommend your business because your site doesn't speak their language.
Nobody tells you about this stuff. There's no error message, no red alert. You just quietly lose customers and never know why.
I built GradeMyWeb to surface all of that in 60 seconds. Put in your URL, get a single letter grade and a breakdown of what's actually going wrong. No signup, no cost.
Still early days - would really appreciate it if some of you ran your site through it and told me what you think. What's useful, what's missing, what's confusing.
- Alex
18 Comments
Just tried it. Clean and fast. One suggestion: add a shareable score card — something users can post on Twitter/LinkedIn. "My site scored 87/100" is free distribution for you and a vanity metric people actually share.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Will defo check out the vanity card idea, thanks
I'm glad you liked my suggestion.
Thank you for taking my words into consideration.
This is a strong angle — “everything looks fine, but you’re quietly losing customers” is very real.
The single letter grade + breakdown makes it easy to grasp quickly 👍
One thing I’d be curious about:
→ how do you prioritize what to fix first?
Because if everything shows up at once, people might not know where to start.
Also, showing impact (“this could cost X leads / traffic”) could make it even more actionable.
Curious what issues you’re seeing most often so far?
Also, I’m running a small project (Tokyo Lore) where we highlight tools like this with a focused group of builders.
Since you’re surfacing invisible problems, this could be a strong fit — happy to share more if you’re interested 👍
Thanks. That's exactly the read I'm going for.
The report does prioritize. There's a "priority order" section that lists failing checks by severity, highest impact first. Past the grade, the next thing you see is "fix this first."
On impact in numbers ("could cost X leads"): I deliberately don't. We don't know your traffic, your conversion rate, or what percentage of your mail actually lands in spam. Putting a fake number on it would undermine the rest of the report. Each finding describes the consequence in plain language and tags it with effort (quick / medium / involved) and who should fix it (IT / Marketing / Legal).
Most common patterns from testing: unenforced DMARC, missing or weak security headers, mobile PageSpeed under 50. DMARC is usually the one that surprises owners.
On Tokyo Lore: sounds interesting, send me more about what fits and the audience.
Alex
That makes a lot of sense — avoiding fake numbers actually builds more trust 👍
The “fix this first” + effort + owner tagging is a really strong combo. That alone makes it way more actionable than most audit tools.
Interesting that DMARC is the biggest surprise — feels like one of those “invisible but critical” issues most people never even think about.
On Tokyo Lore — it’s a small, focused round where we highlight tools like yours in front of builders and operators who actually care about these kinds of hidden problems.
The goal is to see:
→ what people notice immediately
→ what they act on
→ what actually sticks in real workflows
Since GradeMyWeb surfaces exactly those silent issues, it fits really well.
Here’s the link: tokyolore.com
Happy to share more or answer anything 👍
Some red team stuff would be nice, and spam checks on forms. Spambots and teams can destroy your marketing rep in a matter of hours.
Form spam check is a real gap, agreed. Right now we just detect that a contact form exists, not whether it has any spam protection. Detecting honeypot fields, CAPTCHA / hCaptcha, or a known third-party form handler is doable passively. Adding it to the list.
Red team is harder because the genuinely useful stuff there is active testing (port scans, vuln probes, brute force) and we stay strictly passive. We could add the easy passive ones (exposed .env or .git, default admin paths, server version disclosure) but real red-team work probably needs its own tool with the owner's consent.
What's been hitting you? Form spam, scraping, something else?
I love the idea, just tested it on my blog
The list of checks is a good start but is missing a lot in my opinion: nothing about security headers, no core web vitals, no domain reputation...
Idea: the current report could be free forever and a full report would be only available for premium users?
I also tried to scan GradeMyWeb itself but didn't work, I think it would be nice to still display something to see what a website passing all checks looks like
Hey Thom,
Thanks for the feedback. Went through every point and shipped most of it.
- Security headers: added. HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options/frame-ancestors, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy. Lives in Site Quality. 5/5 pass, 3-4 partial, below that fail.
- Core Web Vitals: now visible. Click the PageSpeed check in the report drawer and you get LCP/FCP/CLS/TBT per device, color-coded against Google's thresholds, plus top opportunities with estimated savings.
- Domain reputation: extended. Used to be email blocklists only (Spamhaus etc.), now also queries Google Safe Browsing. Catches Chrome malware/phishing flags.
- Scanning GradeMyWeb itself: fixed. Self-scan was blocked in the frontend. Removed it. There's also a "see a real example" link in the hero that opens a live report.
- Free vs premium: keeping it all free for now. Email gate first when we get traffic, paid tier later once we know what's worth charging for.
If you spot anything else, send it.
Thanks again!
Alex
You're so fast that's incredible!
Guess too much time on my hands ... ;-)
Did the changes address your feedback?
Would you use this report/scan on a regular basis for you or customers?
For now I'm actually already happy with the free tools online so i won't use GradeMyWeb yet unfortunately (I use Spamhaus/ Mozilla HTTP observatory/ PageSpeed and w3 validator)
But GradeMySpeed still has the added value to put all the information at the same place so if I need to simplify the process of healch-checking my websites i'll think about you!
Hey Thom,
Makes total sense. You've already built your own stack and it works, no reason to switch.
The audience I'm chasing is one step earlier in the journey: founders or marketers who've never opened Mozilla Observatory and just want to know if their site is in trouble. If anyone you know fits that, feel free to send them over.
Either way, thanks again for the original feedback. That list shipped a real chunk of the roadmap in a day.
Alex
Most site owners think everything is fine as long as the page loads, while they are quietly losing traffic because of hidden technical gaps or privacy issues. It’s a silent killer for conversions when you don't even realize your contact forms are hitting spam or AI search engines are ignoring your content. Since you provide a letter grade in 60 seconds, how do you balance giving a quick overview with providing enough depth for someone to actually fix the underlying technical issues?
The grade is more like a headline than the answer. If you want to do something about it, you click whichever category looks bad, see which specific checks failed, then click into a check for the actual fix. Each fix is written concretely enough that if you're not the one fixing it, you copy it and forward it to whoever runs your site.
Did you click the cards and see the details and fixes?
The transition from a high-level headline to concrete fixes makes the tool actionable rather than just another vanity metric.
Structuring the results so they can be forwarded directly to developers is a smart move because it bridges the communication gap between business owners and technical teams.
By the way the way I work with digital PR and media placement helps tools like yours gain massive authority by securing features on sites like Bloomberg or AP News which is vital when you are positioning yourself as the industry standard for site health.
Yes I saw how clicking the cards reveals the specific failures and providing those direct solutions is what will keep users coming back to verify their fixes.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago