Before you commit to a migration, a replatform, or a major performance investment,get a clear picture of what's actually wrong and what it'll take to fix it.
Performance is degrading. SEO is slipping. Content updates are stuck behind engineering. Your team has theories, but the fixes don't last and nobody agrees on what to prioritize.
You've optimized images, reworked caching, cleaned up scripts. Lighthouse looks green. Then field data tells a different story. Real users on real devices, 30-50% slower than your lab scores. Another sprint burned. Same regression next month.
Pages dropping out of the index. Editors waiting on devs for every update. Client-side rendering delaying Googlebot. Could be the CMS workflow, the content model, the rendering strategy. Your team's guessing because nobody's actually diagnosed it.
You know something's wrong. Leadership knows too. But "the site feels slow" doesn't unlock a migration budget. What you need is a report that ties specific technical problems to business impact. Something your VP of Engineering can put in front of the CFO.
Outdated dependencies with known CVEs. Third-party scripts nobody's measured since they were added. Tracking setups blocking the main thread on every page load. Each one is fine on its own. Together they're a liability, and they get more expensive every quarter.
"Something feels off" becomes a diagnosis you can act on.
Your team isn't short on effort. They're short on clarity about where to aim it. We audit across Next.js, React, legacy stacks, headless architectures. Performance, SEO, code quality, CMS workflows, security. Scoped to your priorities. No generic checklist.
Field data first. Every issue traced to its root cause. Findings ranked by effort vs. impact so you fix the right things first.
Which rendering decisions, caching gaps, or architecture patterns are behind the problems you're seeing. Not "it's slow." Why it's slow.
You leave knowing what needs to happen and how big the effort is. Targeted fix, phased migration, architecture rework. Whatever fits.
Findings ranked by effort vs. impact. What to fix now, what to fix this quarter, what can wait.
Engineering, product, and leadership looking at the same data. The conversation moves from "what's wrong" to "what do we do first."
%201.svg){kind=icon}
The stuff that's been hiding. Dependencies aging quietly, scripts nobody measured, architecture decisions that worked at your old scale but don't anymore. Once it's visible, you can plan for it.
You see how we think and how thorough we are before any larger engagement. The audit stands on its own.
12-hour response time. We'll tell you what's worth building before you commit.
The problem changes from project to project. The process doesn't. Expand each step to see what it looks like in practice.
Field data first, not just Lighthouse scores. We look at what real users experience on real devices and real networks. That's almost always 30-50% worse than lab scores. It's where the actual problems live.
SSR, SSG, ISR, client-side rendering. Matched to each page type. Most apps get the mix wrong. Or they got it right at one scale and it broke at the next. One bad cache layer often explains months of regressions nobody could figure out.
JavaScript bundles pulled apart. Duplicate dependencies, libraries that aren't tree-shaken, outdated packages with known CVEs. At CookUnity, this surfaced the bundle issues behind a 70% LCP improvement.
Analytics, A/B testing, chat widgets, tag managers. All adding main-thread blocking time most teams never measure. Consent banners alone can add 400-700KB of blocking JS. We measure the actual cost so you can make real tradeoffs.
Crawlability, metadata, structured data, how CWV is affecting rankings. Content model, editor workflows, CMS config. If you're thinking about a headless migration, this is where we assess whether you're ready and how complex it'll be.
How your architecture helps or hurts what you're trying to do. Routing, data fetching, state management, component boundaries. At ArthurAI, this is where we found fragmented modules costing 5x the development effort on every cross-module feature.
The Next.js technical audit covers six areas: field-data performance, rendering and caching, JavaScript bundle and dependencies, third-party script impact, SEO/CMS, and architecture and code quality. You get a root-cause analysis, a prioritized action plan ranked by effort vs. impact, and an executive summary for stakeholders.
Traffic drops after a redesign usually come from broken redirects, lost content, or a slower, harder-to-crawl site. We audit what changed – URL mapping, rendering, Core Web Vitals – find the cause, and give you a prioritized fix list. This is exactly the kind of post-migration issue the audit is built to catch.
We start with field data from real users, devices, and networks, then trace each slow metric to its cause: rendering strategy, caching, bundle size, or third-party scripts. You get root causes with effort estimates, so you know what to fix first.
At the end of the audit, you get a prioritized findings report: root-cause analysis, next steps with effort estimates, an action plan ranked by effort vs. impact, and an executive summary your leadership can act on. The audit stands on its own – you decide what to do with it, with or without us.
Describe your project and an architect will get back with a straight take on what's worth doing and where to start. 12-hour response time.
