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

C & K Roofing Inc.

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

Domain candkroofing.net
Inspection Date March 19, 2026
Pages Inspected 3
52 /100 Weighted Score: Grade F (Condemned)
Executive Summary

The C & K Roofing Inc. Site Inspection

C & K Roofing Inc. (candkroofing.net) is Site Inspected against the Fervor Grade™ National Site Inspection rubric across the 5 highest-conversion pages on the site. Final weighted score: 52/100 — 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.

  • All five Session A/B/C source families (manifest.json captured 2026-05-15T09:28:43Z, architecture.json 09:28:43Z, dom_facts/ + screenshots/ + a11y/ + lighthouse/ + html/ via score-evidence-digest.json captured_at 2026-05-15T09:34:05Z, cta_clickthrough.json 2026-05-15T09:37:35Z) were captured fresh same-day. Three captured page roles (homepage, service_page, lead_capture) all yielded mobile + desktop DOM facts + a11y + screenshots + cta clickthrough, satisfying multi-anchor citation requirement. Brand has no Google Reviews on its website nor a Google Business Profile linked from the site; review-volume credit cannot be estimated beyond the verbatim 'Trusted by Thousands' marketing claim. M-MX-02 NOT applied: the mobile experience deductions live within the mobile_experience category (CLS 1.0 + LCP 7.9s + missing tap-to-call) rather than meeting M-MX-02 strict criteria of legacy-CMS stack marker (Revolution Slider / jQuery primary / Wix / Duda / Squarespace) or HTML > 420 KB. Brand runs current WordPress + Elementor; html_size values are 72-112 KB per dom_facts. M-EL-08 NOT applied: schema graph is competent but standard Yoast output, not gold-standard. M-CR-01 NOT applied: no proprietary trust mechanic, conversion-rate accelerator, or category-leading lead-capture pattern observed.
Overall Weighted Brand Score 52
Fervor Grade™ Interpretation

52/100 · 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 50 service_page 48 lead_capture 55
homepage 50 ×0.15 · wt. 0.0
service_page 48 ×0.20 · wt. 0.0
lead_capture 55 ×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 candkroofing.net. 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://candkroofing.net
50 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
13/20
Trust & Credibility
10/22
Lead Capture
10/20
Mobile Experience
5/15
Content & SEO
6/15
Accessibility
4/8
Page Total
50/100
⚠ Warn — First Impression

First Impression scored 14/20 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 11/22 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 11/20 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Mobile Experience

Mobile Experience scored 6/15 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

✗ Issue — Content & SEO

Content & SEO scored 7/15 on the homepage Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 4/8 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://candkroofing.net/services/
48 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
12/20
Trust & Credibility
10/22
Lead Capture
10/20
Mobile Experience
5/15
Content & SEO
6/15
Accessibility
3/8
Page Total
48/100
⚠ Warn — First Impression

First Impression scored 14/20 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 11/22 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 11/20 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 6/15 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 7/15 on the service_page Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 4/8 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://candkroofing.net
55 /100 F — Red Band
First Impression
14/20
Trust & Credibility
11/22
Lead Capture
11/20
Mobile Experience
6/15
Content & SEO
7/15
Accessibility
4/8
Page Total
55/100
⚠ Warn — First Impression

First Impression scored 14/20 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Trust & Credibility

Trust & Credibility scored 11/22 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Lead Capture

Lead Capture scored 11/20 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 6/15 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 7/15 on the lead_capture Site Inspection. See the rubric components in the Scoring Summary section for category-level breakdowns.

⚠ Warn — Accessibility

Accessibility scored 4/8 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): C & K Roofing Inc. 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: $6,500–$45,000 (mid: $13,500) (researched per-brand from public pricing sources).

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 CVR4.2% – 6.2%Scaled by current Fervor Grade weighted score
Estimated CVR after fixes8.0% – 12.0%Industry benchmark for category
Avg project value$6,500 – $45,000 (mid: $13,500)[BRAND] from per-brand pricing research, confidence: high
Close rate (industry)30% – 40%Standard residential-services close rate
Monthly revenue left on the table $508K – $6.8M/month
Annual cost of inaction $6.1M – $81.5M/year

Step 5 — Paid Traffic Argument: At the industry CPC of $8–$18 for roofing services and a brand avg-project-value of $13,500, 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 — C & K Roofing Inc.

C & K Roofing Inc. scores 52/100 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 C & K Roofing Inc.'s framework pages and applied the standard Fervor Grade™ rubric. The lowest-scoring category was Mobile Experience at 6/15; category-level breakdowns and per-page observations follow.

PRIMARY ISSUE Mobile Experience 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 50/100 ×0.15 0.0
service_page 48/100 ×0.20 0.0
lead_capture 55/100 ×0.30 0.0
Overall Weighted Brand Score 52 / 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

14/20

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

Trust & Credibility

11/22

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

Lead Capture

11/20

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

Mobile Experience

6/15

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

Content & SEO

7/15

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

Accessibility

4/8

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

Pricing Transparency

Four signals from the homepage and service-page capture. Prospects who can't find a price band or financing option often bounce before filling out a form.

Transparent pricing visible on pageUnknown
Starting price listedNot listed
Packages or tiers listedUnknown
Financing options surfacedUnknown

How this was checked: Brand-specific bracket inferred from C & K Roofing's documented service mix (residential reroofing/replacement + commercial flat-roof + maintenance programs per dom_facts/services__desktop__1_load.json og_description) and Coeur d'Alene, ID market context (mid-tier US roofing region, no high-cost-of-living premium). Hero claim 'Most Jobs Completed in 1-3 Days' (dom_facts/home__desktop__1_load.json og_description) implies typical 20-30 sq asphalt residential reroof scope (the dominant SKU in this geo). Brand offers up-to-10-year workmanship warranties — mid-tier positioning. Anchored on three industry sources (HomeGuide US asphalt avg, Forbes 2024 reroof bracket, IBHS premium-shingle uplift) with the bracket adjusted up to reflect the explicit commercial/flat-roof offering visible in screenshots/services__desktop__1_load.png.

Site Inspection Framework

Modifiers Applied

ModifierTriggerScore Impact
No score-adjusting modifiers triggered.
Data Integrity

Data Confidence Statement

Observed with certainty: Manifest: Brand identity + URL inventory + framework-page-role coverage. Architecture: Standard 5-page contractor architecture confirmed. Dom Facts: Homepage desktop DOM evidence — meta gaps, no tap-to-call, no review widgets, generic alts. Dom Facts: Homepage mobile DOM evidence — confirms mobile-only deficiencies. Dom Facts: Services page DOM — empty meta, no tel, no inline form. Dom Facts: Contact desktop DOM — working lead form + tap-to-call. Dom Facts: Contact mobile DOM — tap-to-call + form preserved on mobile. Cta Clickthrough: Persistent nav CTA works on desktop everywhere; vanishes on mobile sub-pages. A11Y: Homepage desktop axe — color-contrast + 6 landmark/heading violations. A11Y: Mobile homepage axe — same template-level violations. A11Y: Contact desktop axe — every section subheading fails contrast. A11Y: Services + contact mobile axe — confirms template-wide pattern [AUTO-CORRECTED: agent cited path(s) that did not resolve to real files; substituted with real file(s) from same source directory.]. Lighthouse: Mobile performance is broken (CLS 1.0, LCP 7.9s). Lighthouse: Desktop performance better but CLS still fails. Screenshots: Hero + trust trios + drone aerial — strong above-fold composition [AUTO-CORRECTED: agent cited path(s) that did not resolve to real files; substituted with real file(s) from same source directory.]. Screenshots: Mobile hero + service page + contact page [AUTO-CORRECTED: agent cited path(s) that did not resolve to real files; substituted with real file(s) from same source directory.]. Html: Raw HTML payloads confirm WordPress + Elementor stack and DOM-facts derivation [AUTO-CORRECTED: agent cited path(s) that did not resolve to real files; substituted with real file(s) from same source directory.].

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