WebsiteIQ turns technical, semantic, trust, performance, and machine-readiness checks into inspectable HTML reports with evidence and prioritized fixes without an LLM. Run a free one-page audit, or let agents quote and buy full-site work through API, MCP, and x402. A 10-page standard audit costs $0.01, and white-label output is built in.
No reviews yetBe the first to leave a review for WebsiteIQ
Maker
📌
WebsiteIQ started as a resume piece.
I kept seeing automated audits that sounded confident but could not show
their work. I wanted something deterministic: crawl robots-first, inspect the
same observable signals every time, and produce an evidence trail that
somebody could actually review.
As I built it, I became interested in another problem. Website auditing is
often packaged inside expensive subscriptions and dashboards. WebsiteIQ
treats the audit itself as a commodity. One page is free. A ten-page standard
audit is $0.01. Software agents can discover it over API or MCP and pay
through x402 without creating an account or provisioning an API key.
The service can run for roughly $5–$10 a month at its current scale, so I do
not need to force users into a funnel or pad the report with generated copy.
It can simply exist, improve, and become useful.
I would especially value feedback on where the report earns your trust and
where the evidence or remediation guidance still feels thin.
Report
Honestly the evidence-based reports sound really useful, but one thing that would help a lot is letting me compare two audit runs side by side so I can actually see what changed after applying fixes. Right now I think I'd have to dig through old reports manually to track progress.
Report
Maker
@geneva_carlisle Thank you,this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. You’re right, reports can be bookmarked or shared today, but comparing them is still manual.
Rather than placing two already-dense reports side by side, I’m considering a focused comparison summary: overall and category score changes, resolved findings, new regressions, and links to both benchmark reports. That would make improvement visible without making the report harder to read.
I’m adding this to the roadmap. Thank you for taking the time to suggest it.
Honestly the evidence-based reports sound really useful, but one thing that would help a lot is letting me compare two audit runs side by side so I can actually see what changed after applying fixes. Right now I think I'd have to dig through old reports manually to track progress.
@geneva_carlisle Thank you,this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. You’re right, reports can be bookmarked or shared today, but comparing them is still manual.
Rather than placing two already-dense reports side by side, I’m considering a focused comparison summary: overall and category score changes, resolved findings, new regressions, and links to both benchmark reports. That would make improvement visible without making the report harder to read.
I’m adding this to the roadmap. Thank you for taking the time to suggest it.