Why Scan Replaces Lighthouse + GTmetrix + WebPageTest

Reading time: 25 minutes

You’re using free tools. That’s smart. why pay for something when Lighthouse, GTmetrix, and PageSpeed Insights exist?

Here’s what those tools won’t tell you: Your site might score 95/100 on performance while being completely invisible to search engines due to missing schema, broken accessibility, or security misconfigurations they don’t check.

Free tools aren’t wrong. They’re just incomplete. And incomplete data leads to incomplete fixes.

TLDR

Free tools like Lighthouse focus on page speed but miss critical issues. Your site might score 95 on performance while being invisible to search engines due to invalid schema, broken accessibility, or security gaps. Running five different free tools, reconciling their conflicting advice, and figuring out priorities yourself costs $250-450 in your time per audit. Scan delivers holistic triage across performance, SEO, accessibility, security, and cross-browser compatibility in one prioritized action list. If your time is worth more than $6.25 per hour, Scan pays for itself.

---

In This Article

• What Free Tools Actually Check (And Don’t Check)
  • Google Lighthouse / PageSpeed Insights
  • GTmetrix
  • WebPageTest
  • The Pattern: Performance ≠ SEO Health
• Real Example: The 95/100 Site That Wasn’t Ranking
• The “Tool Fatigue” Problem
• The “Prioritization Vacuum” Problem
• The “Hidden Blocker” Problem
• The Cross-Browser Blindspot
• The “Score Obsession” Problem
• When Free Tools ARE The Right Choice
• The Scan Advantage: Holistic Triage
• Real Cost Comparison
• Common Objections Answered
• What to Do Next

---

What Free Tools Actually Check (And Don’t Check)

Google Lighthouse / PageSpeed Insights

What it checks:

• Page load speed (LCP, FID, CLS)
• Basic performance optimization
• Some accessibility checks
• Basic SEO checks (meta tags, viewport)

What it doesn’t check:

• Schema.org markup validity (just checks if it exists, not if it’s correct)
• Cross-browser rendering issues
• Security headers configuration
• Accessibility beyond automated checks (color contrast, keyboard nav work but miss context)
• Content structure issues (duplicate H1s, missing hierarchy)
• Mobile-specific bugs vs desktop

Lighthouse’s strength: Fast, automated performance analysis

Lighthouse’s limitation: Narrow focus. assumes speed is your only problem

GTmetrix

What it checks:

• Page speed and load time
• Waterfall analysis (what loads when)
• Image optimization opportunities
• CDN and caching recommendations

What it doesn’t check:

• Schema.org markup at all
• Accessibility beyond automated rules
• Security headers
• Cross-browser compatibility
• SEO content structure
• Mobile vs desktop differences in detail

GTmetrix’s strength: Excellent waterfall visualization for debugging load issues

GTmetrix’s limitation: Performance-only focus

WebPageTest

What it checks:

• Detailed performance metrics
• Multi-location testing
• Filmstrip view of loading
• Connection and CDN analysis

What it doesn’t check:

• Schema.org markup
• Accessibility
• Security headers
• SEO structure
• Content issues

WebPageTest’s strength: Most detailed performance testing available

WebPageTest’s limitation: Still just performance

The Pattern: Performance ≠ SEO Health

All three free tools focus heavily on performance. That’s valuable, but it’s only one dimension of site health.

What matters for SEO (and free tools miss):

• Schema markup validity (structured data that helps search engines understand your content)
• Comprehensive accessibility (not just automated color checks)
• Security headers (HTTPS, CSP, X-Frame-Options)
• Cross-browser compatibility (does it work on Safari, not just Chrome?)
• Content structure (proper heading hierarchy, semantic HTML)

Real Example: The 95/100 Site That Wasn’t Ranking

Scenario: Local law firm website

Lighthouse score: 95/100 (excellent!)

• Performance: 98
• Accessibility: 92
• Best Practices: 95
• SEO: 90

Business reality: Not ranking for “estate planning lawyer [city]” despite having great content

What Lighthouse missed (but Scan caught):

1. Schema markup was present but invalid

   • Lighthouse checked: Schema exists
   • Scan checked: Schema had syntax errors that made it useless to search engines
   • Fix: Corrected LocalBusiness schema structure
   • Impact: Rich snippets now appear in search results

2. Mobile-specific rendering bug

   • Lighthouse checked: Page loads on mobile
   • Scan checked: Contact form fields overlapped on Safari iOS, making it unusable
   • Fix: CSS adjustment for iOS Safari
   • Impact: Mobile conversion rate increased 40%

3. Missing security headers

   • Lighthouse checked: HTTPS enabled
   • Scan checked: No Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options headers
   • Fix: Added security headers
   • Impact: Improved trust signals to search engines

4. Duplicate H1 tags across 12 pages

   • Lighthouse checked: H1 tags exist
   • Scan checked: Same H1 on multiple pages (confuses search engines about page purpose)
   • Fix: Unique H1s per page
   • Impact: Pages began ranking for distinct keywords

Result: Site went from “looks great” to actually ranking and converting

Lighthouse said: “Your site is fast!” (true)

Scan said: “Your site is fast, but here are 8 SEO/accessibility/security issues preventing it from ranking and converting” (actionable)

KEY TAKEAWAY: A 95/100 Lighthouse score means your site is fast. But speed is only one dimension of SEO health. Invalid schema, security header gaps, and cross-browser bugs can keep you invisible to search engines even with perfect performance scores.

The “Tool Fatigue” Problem

Let’s say you use all the free tools. Your workflow looks like this:

Monday Morning: Audit Day

1. Run Lighthouse (5 min)

   • Save performance report
   • Note speed recommendations

2. Run GTmetrix (5 min)

   • Check waterfall
   • Export results

3. Run WebPageTest (10 min)

   • Test from multiple locations
   • Save filmstrips

4. Manually check schema with Google’s Rich Results Test (10 min)

   • Test each page type
   • Fix errors in separate tool

5. Run WAVE accessibility checker (10 min)

   • Check contrast issues
   • Note keyboard navigation problems

6. Check security headers with securityheaders.com (5 min)

   • See what’s missing
   • Look up how to configure each header

7. Manually test cross-browser (30 min)

   • Open in Safari, Firefox, Edge
   • Check mobile on iOS and Android
   • Note differences

Total time: 75+ minutes

What you have: 7 different reports from 7 different tools, all with different data formats and no unified priorities

What you don’t have: A single answer to “what should I fix first?”

The Scan Alternative

1. Run Scan (1 min to submit)
2. Wait 15 minutes (do other work)
3. Review comprehensive report (10 min)
   • All checks done: performance, accessibility, schema, security, cross-browser
   • Prioritized action list: “Fix these 5 things first”
   • Step-by-step fix instructions included
   • Estimated impact per fix

Total time: 26 minutes (with 15 minutes of parallel work)

What you have: Single prioritized action plan

What you don’t need: Time to reconcile 7 different tool reports

KEY TAKEAWAY: Running 7 different free tools takes 75+ minutes and leaves you with conflicting data formats and no unified priorities. The real cost of “free” tools is $250-450 in your time per audit. Not counting the decision paralysis.

The “Prioritization Vacuum” Problem

Free tools give you data. They don’t tell you what to do with it.

Example Lighthouse output:

• “Reduce unused JavaScript” (potential savings: 0.3s)
• “Properly size images” (potential savings: 2.1s)
• “Eliminate render-blocking resources” (potential savings: 0.4s)
• “Use modern image formats” (potential savings: 1.2s)

You have to figure out:

• Which one matters most for SEO vs UX?
• Which one is quick to fix vs requires dev resources?
• Which one impacts rankings vs just scores?
• What order should I tackle these in?

Scan output for same issues:

Priority 1: Properly size images (High Impact - 2 hours)

• Why it matters: Page loads 2+ seconds slower than competitors, causing higher bounce rate
• SEO impact: HIGH - Google prioritizes mobile page speed, you’re losing rankings
• How to fix: [Specific instructions with image dimensions for each page]
• Estimated improvement: 2.1s faster load, 15-20% bounce rate reduction

Priority 2: Use modern image formats (Medium Impact - 1 hour)

• Why it matters: Legacy JPEGs are 3-4x larger than WebP alternatives
• SEO impact: MEDIUM - Improves mobile experience, supports Priority 1
• How to fix: [Step-by-step WebP conversion guide]
• Estimated improvement: 1.2s faster load, 40% smaller page size

Priority 3: Eliminate render-blocking CSS (Low Impact - 4 hours)

• Why it matters: Blocks initial paint, but minimal SEO impact given your small CSS file
• SEO impact: LOW - Technical best practice but won’t move ranking needle
• How to fix: [Guide to CSS inlining or async loading]
• Estimated improvement: 0.4s faster initial render
• Recommendation: Address Priorities 1-2 first, revisit this if time allows

The difference: Scan doesn’t just report problems. It tells you which ones matter and why.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Free tools give you data. Scan gives you decisions. When Lighthouse says “fix 12 issues,” you still need to figure out priority, impact, and effort. Scan tells you “fix these 3 first because they’ll deliver 80% of the improvement.”

The “Hidden Blocker” Problem

Free tools focus on what they’re designed to check. They miss issues outside their scope.

Real Examples of Issues Free Tools Miss

Case 1: The “Perfect Score” Site That Doesn’t Rank

Site scores:

• Lighthouse: 98/100
• GTmetrix: A grade
• WebPageTest: All green

Actual problem (Scan found):

• LocalBusiness schema had wrong @type (listed as “Restaurant” instead of “Attorney”)
• Google treated it as restaurant, not showing in legal searches
• Fix: Change schema @type to “Attorney”
• Result: Rankings appeared within 2 weeks

Lighthouse checked schema exists: Present Scan validated schema meaning: Wrong type

---

Case 2: The Accessible Site That Wasn’t

Site scores:

• Lighthouse accessibility: 95/100
• WAVE: All automated checks passing

Actual problem (Scan found):

• Keyboard navigation worked, but focus indicators were invisible (white on white)
• Screen readers announced decorative images as meaningful
• Form labels existed in HTML but weren’t visually associated with inputs

Lighthouse automated checks: Passed Scan contextual review: Real users would struggle

---

Case 3: The Secure Site That Wasn’t

Site scores:

• Lighthouse: HTTPS enabled
• SSL Labs: A+ rating

Actual problem (Scan found):

• Missing Content-Security-Policy header (allows XSS attacks)
• No X-Frame-Options (site could be embedded in malicious iframe)
• Permissive CORS policy (API endpoints accessible from any origin)

Lighthouse checked HTTPS: Enabled Scan checked comprehensive security posture: Multiple gaps

The Cross-Browser Blindspot

Lighthouse and most free tools test in Chrome (or Chromium). Your customers use Safari, Firefox, Edge, mobile browsers.

Issues Scan catches that free tools miss:

1. Safari-specific rendering bugs

   • CSS Grid layouts that break in Safari 14
   • Flexbox behavior differences
   • Date picker incompatibilities

2. iOS-specific issues

   • Input zoom on focus (causes jarring UX)
   • Viewport height inconsistencies with mobile browser chrome
   • Touch target sizes that work on Android but not iOS

3. Firefox-specific problems

   • Font rendering differences
   • Form validation behavior
   • Animation performance variances

Free tool approach: Test in Chrome, hope it works elsewhere

Scan approach: Test across browsers, report discrepancies with specific fixes

The “Score Obsession” Problem

Free tools give you a score. That score becomes the goal.

What happens:

• “We got our Lighthouse score from 78 to 94!”
• High-fives all around
• But: Traffic didn’t improve, conversions unchanged, rankings same

Why scores don’t equal results:

• You optimized what the tool measures (load time), not what users need (working forms)
• You fixed Chrome issues, ignored Safari problems
• You improved speed, missed accessibility barriers
• You passed automated checks, ignored real-world usability

Scan’s philosophy: Forget scores, fix problems in priority order

Scan doesn’t give you an overall “grade.” It gives you:

1. Critical issues (fix immediately): Schema errors, broken mobile UX, security gaps
2. High-impact improvements (fix this week): Duplicate H1s, missing alt text, slow images
3. Nice-to-haves (fix when time allows): Minor performance tweaks, advanced optimizations

Results over scores.

When Free Tools ARE The Right Choice

Free tools aren’t bad. They serve specific needs:

Use Lighthouse/PageSpeed Insights when:

• You made specific performance changes and want to validate improvement
• You’re a developer debugging load time issues
• You need quick spot-check on page speed
• You’re monitoring one specific metric (like Core Web Vitals)

Use GTmetrix when:

• You need waterfall analysis to debug specific resource loading
• You’re testing CDN configuration
• You want to compare performance across geographic locations

Use WebPageTest when:

• You need forensic-level performance analysis
• You’re debugging complex loading sequences
• You want filmstrip visualization of rendering

But for comprehensive site health triage: Free tools require combining 5-7 different services, reconciling conflicting advice, and figuring out priorities yourself.

The Scan Advantage: Holistic Triage

Scan checks everything free tools check, PLUS:

Dimension	Lighthouse	GTmetrix	WebPageTest	Scan
Performance
Schema validity	Basic			Deep
Accessibility	Automated			Contextual
Security headers	HTTPS only			Comprehensive
Cross-browser	Chrome only		Limited	Multi-browser
Content structure	Basic			Full audit
Mobile-specific	Viewport	Speed	Speed	UX testing
Prioritization				Ranked list
Fix instructions	Generic	Generic	Generic	Specific

The “holistic triage” difference: Scan treats your site as a system, not just a performance metric.

Real Cost Comparison

Free Tools Approach

Time investment per audit:

• Running 5-7 different tools: 60-90 minutes
• Reconciling results: 30-60 minutes
• Deciding priorities: 30-45 minutes
• Looking up fix instructions: 45-90 minutes Total: 2.5-4.5 hours

Value of your time: If you’re worth $100/hour: $250-450 per audit

Frequency: Most businesses should audit quarterly at minimum

Annual cost: $1,000-1,800 in your time

Scan Approach

Time investment per audit:

• Submit Scan request: 1 minute
• Review report: 15-20 minutes
• Prioritized fixes already listed with instructions Total: 20-25 minutes

Cost: $25 or $50 per audit (depending on depth)

Frequency: Quarterly

Annual cost: $100-200 total

Savings: $900-1,600 per year in your time, plus better results

KEY TAKEAWAY: If your time is worth more than $6.25/hour, Scan pays for itself by saving 3-4 hours per audit. The ROI isn’t just time. It’s catching the critical issues free tools miss entirely (invalid schema, cross-browser bugs, security gaps).

Common Objections Answered

”But Lighthouse is free!”

So is spending 4 hours reconciling multiple free tool reports. Your time isn’t free.

The real cost of “free”: $250-450 per audit in labor (at $100/hour)

Scan cost: $25 or $50 per audit

Savings: $200-400 per audit, plus you get better prioritization

”I only care about page speed”

That’s fine if:

• Your site ranks well already (SEO isn’t the issue)
• You have zero accessibility concerns (legal risk)
• You’re certain schema markup is correct (rich snippets appearing)
• Cross-browser testing isn’t relevant (customers only use Chrome)
• You’re comfortable with security header gaps

If any of those aren’t true, speed-only focus leaves critical gaps.

”Can’t I just use Lighthouse AND manually check the rest?”

You can. That’s the 4-hour audit workflow described above.

If your time is worth less than $6.25/hour ($25 Scan / 4 hours saved), manual is cheaper.

If your time is worth more than $6.25/hour, Scan is the better deal.

”My developer can run all these tools for me”

Sure, at what cost?

Developer rate: $100-200/hour typical

Time for audit covering performance, accessibility, SEO, security, and mobile: 2-4 hours (reconciling tools, researching fixes, writing recommendations)

Cost: $200-800 per audit

Scan: $25 or $50 per audit

Savings: $175-750 per audit

Plus: Your developer’s time is better spent implementing fixes, not running tools.

The Bottom Line

Free tools are excellent at what they do. focused performance testing and spot checks.

Free tools are incomplete for comprehensive site health, requiring you to:

• Use 5-7 different services
• Spend 2-4 hours per audit
• Reconcile conflicting advice
• Figure out priorities yourself
• Research fixes separately

Scan delivers:

• All dimensions: performance, accessibility, SEO, security, cross-browser
• Single prioritized action list
• Fix instructions included
• 20-minute time investment
• $25 or $50 per audit

The ROI: If your time is worth $50/hour or more, Scan pays for itself by saving 3-4 hours per audit.

What to Do Next

Option 1: Start with Free Tools, Add Scan for Gaps (Low Risk)

1. Run Lighthouse to check performance
2. If score is good but site still isn’t converting/ranking, run Scan
3. Discover the non-performance issues holding you back
4. Realize how much time you would have saved starting with Scan 😊

Option 2: Start with Scan (Recommended)

1. Get Scan report ($25 or $50) for comprehensive baseline
2. Get prioritized action list covering all site health dimensions
3. Fix top 3-5 issues first (the ones that matter most)
4. Use free tools for ongoing spot-checks between quarterly Scan audits

Option 3: Keep Using Free Tools (If Time Isn’t Valuable)

If your time is worth less than $10/hour, or you genuinely enjoy spending 4 hours running multiple tools and reconciling results, stick with free tools.

For everyone else: Your time is worth more than the cost of Scan.

Learn More

• Scan vs SEO Audit Tools Comparison
• Core Web Vitals Explained
• Schema Markup for Local Business
• Getting Started with Surmado

---

Ready to stop spending hours on multiple free tools? Get your Scan report and get holistic site health triage in one prioritized action list. Your time is worth more than $10/hour.