ROVQIX provides conversion rate optimisation as an engineering service: verifying measurement first, analysing where the funnel leaks, removing friction, then designing and implementing tests where traffic supports them — reported against revenue rather than micro-conversions.
The first thing we usually find is that the analytics are wrong. Optimising against numbers that are double-counting or blocked by consent is worse than doing nothing.
Tracking verified
Where most wins are
The reported metric
About sample size
Verifying events fire once, correctly, and that consent handling is not silently removing half the data.
Where people leave, segmented by device and source, so the biggest leak is addressed first.
Fewer steps, fewer fields, faster pages — usually a larger effect than any test you could run.
Hypotheses with an expected mechanism, and an honest calculation of whether you have the traffic.
Variants built properly rather than injected by a script that causes a visible flicker.
Results against revenue per session, including tests that did not work and what that tells you.
Because a meaningful share of the sites we audit are optimising against numbers that are wrong.
| Change | Typical impact | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Removing form fields | High | Low |
| Fixing mobile page speed | High | Medium |
| Removing a checkout step | High | Medium |
| Showing costs earlier | Medium to high | Low |
| Clarifying the headline | Medium | Low |
| Adding specific proof | Medium | Low |
| Button colour and copy tests | Low | Low |
The industry's association of CRO with button-colour testing is unfortunate. The large effects come from removing steps and making the page fast, both of which are engineering work rather than experiments.
Statistical significance needs conversions, not visitors. As a rough guide you want a few hundred conversions per variant to trust a result. Below that, tests will produce numbers that look conclusive and are not.
We will not give a number before looking. Sites with obvious friction and slow pages often see substantial improvement; well-optimised sites see incremental gains. The audit gives a grounded estimate.
We implement variants in code rather than through a script-injection tool where possible, because those cause a visible flicker and slow the page — which biases the result against the variant.
Yes, or we work from your designs. Most of the highest-impact changes are structural — removing steps and fields — rather than visual.
That is a legitimate result and we report it plainly. Knowing a change does not matter saves you building more of it. Reporting only wins is how CRO programmes lose credibility.
Indicative ranges in USD. Every engagement is quoted to a written scope before work starts, so the number you approve is the number you pay.
$1,800 – $4,000
1–2 weeks
Best for: Knowing where the leaks are
$5,000 – $15,000
4–10 weeks
Best for: Fixing what the audit found
from $2,000 / month
Ongoing
Best for: Sites with traffic to test continuously
How we think about this work, in more depth.
Conversion
A 30-minute call, then a written proposal with scope, price and timeline within two to three working days. No retainer required to get a real number, and no obligation if the answer is that we are not the right fit.