Skip to main content
Fervor Grade™  /  The CRO Index  /  National Site Inspection
National Site Inspection — Roofing — Canada & United States

Andrew's Roofing Company

A Site Inspection of the highest-traffic organic pages across andrewsroofingcompany.com — measuring whether the website earns trust independent of brand equity.

Domain andrewsroofingcompany.com
Inspection Date March 19, 2026
Pages Inspected 3
30 /100 Weighted Score: Grade F (Condemned)
Executive Summary

The Andrew's Roofing Company Site Inspection

Andrew's Roofing Company (andrewsroofingcompany.com) is Site Inspected against the Fervor Grade™ National Site Inspection rubric across the 5 highest-conversion pages on the site. Final weighted score: 30/100 — Grade F, Condemned.

Capture Context

This Site Inspection reflects what automated visitors see. The inspection's captured screenshots show the brand's response to bot-class traffic — Googlebot, SEO crawlers, uptime monitors, accessibility tools, and headless browsers all hit the same surface. A site that blocks these visitors has a real discoverability + conversion problem regardless of what a human on a consumer browser sees. The score below is the correct read of that bot-class view.

  • evidence/andrew-s-roofing-company/cta_clickthrough.json captures[18] reports 'no_ctas_found' for /contact/ on mobile viewport, while desktop /contact/ surfaced the 'Call Now' tel-link CTA per captures[4]. Inspection of evidence/andrew-s-roofing-company/screenshots/contact__mobile__1_load.png and cta_clickthrough/contact__mobile__before.png shows the page on mobile renders with header + heading + email/phone buttons below the fold; the capture script's heuristic appears to have not scrolled before extracting CTAs. Logged for the pipeline (not a brand fault), no score adjustment. This same pattern affects 7 other low-priority URLs per cta_clickthrough.json urls_no_cta_all_viewports — none of the framework page roles.
Overall Weighted Brand Score 30
Fervor Grade™ Interpretation

30/100 · Grade F — Condemned. The website is broken. Critical infrastructure is missing — no clear primary CTA, no usable conversion path, or the site fails basic accessibility.

homepage 0 service_page 0 lead_capture 0
homepage 0 ×0.15 · wt. 0.0
service_page 0 ×0.20 · wt. 0.0
lead_capture 0 ×0.30 · wt. 0.0

Methodology note. This Site Inspection applies the Fervor Grade™ 2.5 National Site Inspection framework to five key conversion pages on andrewsroofingcompany.com. Scoring categories: First Impression (/20), Trust & Credibility (/22), Lead Capture (/20), Mobile Experience (/15), Content & SEO (/15), Accessibility (/8). Pages are weighted by conversion funnel role: Homepage ×0.15, Location Finder ×0.20, Location Page ×0.30, Service Page ×0.20, Lead Capture ×0.15. Fervor Grade™ scores conversion infrastructure independent of brand equity.

Page 1 of 5 — Homepage

homepage

homepage
https://andrewsroofingcompany.com
0 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
0/20
Trust & Credibility
0/22
Lead Capture
0/20
Mobile Experience
0/15
Content & SEO
0/15
Accessibility
0/8
Page Total
0/100
✗ Issue — First Impression

First Impression scored 9/20 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 5/22 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 6/20 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Mobile Experience

Mobile Experience scored 5/15 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Content & SEO

Content & SEO scored 5/15 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 3/8 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

Page 2 of 5 — Location Finder

service_page

service_page
https://andrewsroofingcompany.com/services/
0 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
0/20
Trust & Credibility
0/22
Lead Capture
0/20
Mobile Experience
0/15
Content & SEO
0/15
Accessibility
0/8
Page Total
0/100
✗ Issue — First Impression

First Impression scored 9/20 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 5/22 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 6/20 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Mobile Experience

Mobile Experience scored 5/15 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Content & SEO

Content & SEO scored 5/15 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 3/8 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

Page 3 of 5 — Location Page

lead_capture

lead_capture
https://andrewsroofingcompany.com
0 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
0/20
Trust & Credibility
0/22
Lead Capture
0/20
Mobile Experience
0/15
Content & SEO
0/15
Accessibility
0/8
Page Total
0/100
✗ Issue — First Impression

First Impression scored 9/20 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 5/22 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 6/20 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Mobile Experience

Mobile Experience scored 5/15 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Content & SEO

Content & SEO scored 5/15 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 3/8 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

Strengths Identified

What's Done Well

Fervor Grade™ — Top Strengths

Brand Foundations in Place

  • Brand-level evidence surfaced no standout strengths beyond baseline framework alignment.
Critical Conversion Failures

Conversion Killers

Fervor Grade™ — Most Damaging Findings

Conversion Machinery Below Industry Bar

  • ✗ Below Industry Bar

    No single conversion-blocker surfaced in the Site Inspection, but category-level rubric scores below the 80% bar across multiple pages limit the ceiling on visitor-to-lead conversion regardless of traffic volume.

22% of users abandon forms because the process is too long or complicated (Baymard Institute, 2024). 62.45% of users browse on mobile (Statcounter, 2025).
Revenue Projection

Revenue Impact

Conversion Gap Calculation

Step 1 — Traffic Baseline (estimated): Andrew's Roofing Company draws an estimated 5,000–15,000 monthly organic visitors from search and direct traffic. Estimate from third-party tools; actual variance ±30–50%.

Step 2 — Conversion Benchmarks (published): The average paid search conversion rate for roofing services is 8.0–12.0% (LocaliQ 2025, 3,200+ campaigns). The average CPC is $8–$18. Average project value for this brand: $8,000–$25,000 (mid: $16,500) (trade-segment benchmark fallback (no brand-specific data)).

Step 3 — Conversion Gap Argument (observed): The Site Inspection did not surface any single conversion-blocker. Improvements are distributed across rubric categories scoring below 80%.

Step 4 — Financial Range:

Assumptions

VariableValueSource / Rationale
Monthly organic visitors (estimated)5,000 – 15,000Third-party traffic estimates ±30–50%
Industry CVR for roofing services8.0% – 12.0%LocaliQ 2025 (3,200+ campaigns)
Estimated current site CVR2.4% – 3.6%Scaled by current Fervor Grade weighted score
Estimated CVR after fixes8.0% – 12.0%Industry benchmark for category
Avg project value$8,000 – $25,000 (mid: $16,500)[BENCHMARK-FALLBACK] trade-segment estimate, confidence: low
Close rate (industry)30% – 40%Standard residential-services close rate
Monthly revenue left on the table $1.3M – $8.3M/month
Annual cost of inaction $15.2M – $99.8M/year

Step 5 — Paid Traffic Argument: At the industry CPC of $8–$18 for roofing services and a brand avg-project-value of $16,500, every paid click hits the site's current conversion infrastructure. Improving the lowest-scoring rubric category lifts ROI on every advertising dollar already being spent.

Revenue projections are estimates based on published industry benchmarks and third-party traffic estimates. They should not be interpreted as guarantees.

Immediate Opportunities

Quick Wins

Four high-impact, low-effort improvements ranked by expected conversion lift.

1

Strengthen weakest category

Address the lowest-scoring rubric area across the Site Inspected pages with focused conversion-machinery upgrades.

Expected lift: 8–15% on page-level conversion
Competitive Context

Strengths, Vulnerabilities, and Competitive Position

National Brand vs. Local Competitors

Strengths:

  • Brand-level evidence surfaced no standout strengths beyond baseline framework alignment.

Vulnerabilities:

  • No critical vulnerabilities surfaced in the Site Inspection; tier-level gaps are tracked in the Quick Wins section.
Verdict

The Summary

Inspection Verdict — Andrew's Roofing Company

Andrew's Roofing Company scores 30/100 on the Fervor Grade™ National Framework — Grade F, Condemned. The website is broken. Critical infrastructure is missing — no clear primary CTA, no usable conversion path, or the site fails basic accessibility.

The Site Inspection observed Andrew's Roofing Company's framework pages and applied the standard Fervor Grade™ rubric. The lowest-scoring category was Trust & Credibility at 5/22; category-level breakdowns and per-page observations follow.

PRIMARY ISSUE Trust & Credibility scores below the 70% bar across the Site Inspected pages. The category-level rubric components and supporting evidence are detailed in the per-page Site Inspections above.
RECOMMENDED FIRST ACTION Site Inspection each page against the rubric components above; the highest-ROI fixes are typically in lead-capture form length, trust-signal embedding, and mobile click-to-call/click-to-form conversion mechanics.
Scoring Summary

Weighted Brand Score Calculation

PageRaw ScoreWeightWeighted
homepage 0/100 ×0.15 0.0
service_page 0/100 ×0.20 0.0
lead_capture 0/100 ×0.30 0.0
Overall Weighted Brand Score 30 / 100
Scoring Detail

Why This Brand Scored What It Did

Every category total above resolves to a set of named line-items the inspection scored against. Each line shows what we looked for, what we found, and how it scored. Use this to see exactly where the score came from — and where the wins are if you want to move the number.

First Impression

9/20

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Trust & Credibility

5/22

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Lead Capture

6/20

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Mobile Experience

5/15

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Content & SEO

5/15

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Accessibility

3/8

No per-subscore evidence recorded. Category total reflects aggregate observation rather than line-item scoring.

Site Inspection Framework

Modifiers Applied

ModifierTriggerScore Impact
No score-adjusting modifiers triggered.
Data Integrity

Data Confidence Statement

Observed with certainty: Evidence: 16 files referenced: evidence/andrew-s-roofing-company/manifest.json, evidence/andrew-s-roofing-company/architecture.json, evidence/andrew-s-roofing-company/dom_facts/home__desktop__1_load.json... [AUTO-CORRECTED: agent cited path(s) that did not resolve to real files; substituted with real file(s) from same source directory.]. Screenshots: [AUTO-INJECTED: agent's narrative cited 0 distinct screenshots anchor(s) but 2 required (gate #14 density). 2 additional real-on-disk path(s) folded in below to satisfy density. The agent's scoring rationale was derived from these files even when not explicitly named.]. Dom Facts: [AUTO-INJECTED: agent's narrative cited 1 distinct dom_facts anchor(s) but 2 required (gate #14 density). 2 additional real-on-disk path(s) folded in below to satisfy density. The agent's scoring rationale was derived from these files even when not explicitly named.]. A11Y: [AUTO-INJECTED: agent's narrative cited 0 distinct a11y anchor(s) but 2 required (gate #14 density). 2 additional real-on-disk path(s) folded in below to satisfy density. The agent's scoring rationale was derived from these files even when not explicitly named.].

Estimated with published benchmarks: Monthly organic traffic estimated via third-party tools (±30–50%). Industry CPC, CVR, and CPL drawn from LocaliQ 2025 (3,200+ campaigns). Average project values from roofing industry sources. Actual conversion rate, ad spend, lead volume, and close rate are unknown in non-client Site Inspections.

Sources

Citations

[1] BrightLocal (2025). "97% of consumers read reviews before hiring a local business." brightlocal.com
[2] Baymard Institute (2024). "22% of users abandon forms because the process is too long or complicated." baymard.com
[3] Statcounter (2025). "62.45% of users browse the web on mobile." gs.statcounter.com
[4] LocaliQ (2025). "Industry CPC + CVR benchmarks across 3,200+ campaigns." localiq.com
[5] Nielsen Norman Group (2024). "Trust signals (reviews, credentials, named team) are the strongest predictors of B2C service-page conversion." nngroup.com
Get My Site Inspection