What premium dental sites get wrong.
We ran our own 14-category audit standard against a real clinic's live site — not to criticise a competitor, but to show the same rigour we'd apply to a client's site before recommending a rebuild.
Why
Before we tell a client whether their site needs fixing or rebuilding, we need a standard we actually apply — not a sales pitch dressed up as an audit. Running it against a real, unnamed clinic site let us test the standard itself before using it to make that call for anyone.
What we looked for
The same 14 categories we run on every audit, grouped here into the three that mattered most for this site.
What we found
Patterns that repeated across the sites we reviewed — not one clinic's mistakes, a category's.
Full-resolution photography loaded eagerly on page one, adding seconds to load time for content most visitors don't scroll to.
No WhatsApp or web booking path — every enquiry funnelled through a phone call, which loses the visitors who'd rather not.
The same builder theme, same section order, same stock imagery — the sites that call themselves premium often look the most alike.
Every site claimed to be fast and modern; none published a measured number to back it up.
The numbers
This is a review of someone else's site, not a build of our own — there's no Finercraft-built page here to publish vitals for.
What it shows
This proves the standard, applied — not a client engagement.
We're a new studio, so this audit exists to show the rigour behind the standard we'd apply to your site too — the same 14 categories, the same honesty about what's actually slow or missing. No client name is attached because there is no client here; it's a pattern review, labelled as one.
Start here
Want this standard on your site?
Tell us what you’re building. One studio reads every enquiry and replies with a straight answer — not a sales deck.