ROVQIX diagnoses and fixes web performance problems — Largest Contentful Paint, Interaction to Next Paint and Cumulative Layout Shift — using real user monitoring rather than lab scores alone, and reports the conversion effect alongside the metrics.
A Lighthouse score is a lab simulation of one page load on one device. Your visitors are on worse networks and cheaper phones. We fix what real users experience.
Real-user measurement
All three addressed
Enforced in CI
Conversion impact
Field data by page, device and country, so work targets what visitors actually experience.
Finding the true LCP element and removing what delays it — usually discovery, priority or render-blocking resources.
Breaking up long tasks, cutting hydration cost and deferring work so interactions respond immediately.
Reserved space for images, ads, embeds and banners so content stops jumping as the page loads.
Every tag measured for cost and value. Usually two or three can go with no business impact at all.
Bundle and metric budgets enforced on every pull request, so the gains do not erode over the next quarter.
Usually images, render-blocking resources and third-party JavaScript — in that order, on most sites we audit.
| Cause | Typical impact | Effort to fix |
|---|---|---|
| Oversized images | 1–3s on LCP | Low |
| Render-blocking CSS/JS | 0.5–2s | Low to medium |
| Third-party scripts | 0.5–3s, plus INP | Low, mostly a decision |
| Font loading | 0.3–1s, plus CLS | Low |
| Excess client JavaScript | INP and TBT | Medium to high |
| Slow server response | 0.2–2s on TTFB | Varies |
The first four are usually a week of work with most of the benefit. We do those first and re-measure before proposing anything structural.
Lighthouse loads one page, cold, on a simulated device and network. Real users arrive with warm caches, different devices, different connections, and — critically — they interact. INP only exists once someone clicks something, which a lab test never does.
On a typical unoptimised site, LCP improvements of 40 to 60 percent are common in the first pass. We give a specific estimate after the audit rather than promising a number upfront.
Core Web Vitals are a ranking signal, but a modest one compared with content and links. The stronger case is conversion and bounce rate — speed affects revenue more directly than it affects rankings.
Usually not. Most gains come from images, scripts, fonts and loading strategy on the existing site. We only recommend a rebuild when the platform itself is the constraint, and we will show you the evidence.
Yes for audits and most fixes — images, scripts, caching, theme-level work. For deep application-level changes our strength is Next.js and React, and we will be clear about that boundary.
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.
$1,200 – $2,800
1 week
Best for: Knowing exactly what to fix
$3,500 – $9,000
3–5 weeks
Best for: Sites failing Core Web Vitals
from $600 / month
Ongoing
Best for: Keeping the gains
How we think about this work, in more depth.
Performance
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.