The observations, with their denominators
On 27 September 2026, we attempted one mobile Lighthouse run for each of 30 selected homepages. Twenty-six produced usable reports; four remained unavailable. Eighteen of the 26 measured pages had a simulated Largest Contentful Paint above four seconds in that run. Automated contrast checks flagged 17 of 26 pages, and link-name checks flagged 11 of 26. These are page-level observations from a small, deliberately selected cohort. They are not national prevalence estimates, a ranking of suppliers or evidence about the quality of a provider's client work. The table retains every selected site, including unsuccessful measurements, so the reader can inspect exactly what supports each count.
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), in seconds. Counts include unavailable attempts.
- Up to 2.5 s2 / 30
- Over 2.5 to 4 s6 / 30
- Over 4 s18 / 30
- Unavailable4 / 30
One simulated mobile run per homepage. These are lab observations, not field Core Web Vitals or a supplier ranking.
Each fraction uses only eligible binary results for that check.
- Contrast17 / 26
- Heading order12 / 26
- Link names11 / 26
- Image alternatives2 / 26
- Button names2 / 21
- Form labels0 / 9
An automated pass is not a WCAG conformance assessment. Not-applicable results are excluded, not counted as passes.
Inspect all 30 observations
Alphabetical order. LCP is rounded for display; exact values, warnings and settings are in the download. Contact channels reflect delivered HTML only. A dash means unavailable, never zero.
| Provider / source | LCP (s) | Report | HTML contact signals |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acuarela WebSelection source | 2.73 | Available | Contact link, Email |
| Agencia 724Selection source | — | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| ArtedinámicoSelection source | 8.81 | Available | Contact link, WhatsApp |
| BangluxorSelection source | 9.3 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| BarranquillaWebSelection source | 2.85 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| BranchSelection source | 6.8 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone |
| Cangrejo DigitalSelection source | 3.04 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| Contra StudioSelection source | 7.1 | Available | |
| CREA StudioSelection source | 4.16 | Available | |
| Creativos WebSelection source | 2.75 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| DAMOSSelection source | 9.3 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone |
| Deconma DigitalSelection source | 3.36 | Available | |
| DistecnowebSelection source | 13.49 | Available | Email, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| Dweb3dSelection source | 11.68 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| IDEOXSelection source | 3.44 | Available | Contact link, Email, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| INJOESelection source | 9.18 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| Juan C. TamaraSelection source | 4.61 | Available | Contact link, Telephone |
| Medellín Web StudioSelection source | 1.8 | Available | Contact link, Email |
| MillorsSelection source | — | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| MKS PublicidadSelection source | 25.19 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| MoobaSelection source | 16.18 | Available | Contact link, WhatsApp |
| Orbit Lab CoSelection source | 4.24 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| Página Web ColombiaSelection source | 8.04 | Available | None detected |
| PANCA StudioSelection source | 1.37 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
| Platino WebSelection source | 5.31 | Available | Contact link, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| SierrezSelection source | 5.57 | Available | Contact link, WhatsApp |
| SingleClickSelection source | 6.24 | Available · redirect warning | Contact link, Telephone, WhatsApp |
| SodecompanySelection source | — | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| TuataraSelection source | — | Unavailable | Contact link, Telephone |
| WebMedellin.coSelection source | 7.57 | Available | Contact link, Email, WhatsApp |
How the sample was selected
We fixed the 30 URLs before collecting measurements. The manifest combines providers already documented in Dardo's official-source research with three recorded searches for web services in Colombia and its cities. Each entry includes the provider's own source used for selection. Offering services for Colombia does not establish that the business has an office in a particular city. The cohort excludes Dardo and its clients. This is a purposive sample of web-service providers, not a random sample of all Colombian companies or an exhaustive agency directory. Search discovery favors visible providers, and the chosen homepage may not represent a provider's strongest work. We therefore report counts within this cohort and avoid generalizing them to a market share, nationwide defect rate or best-agency claim.
Performance: turn a number into an acceptance task
Two of 26 measured pages had lab LCP at or below 2.5 seconds, six were above 2.5 and at or below four seconds, and 18 exceeded four seconds. Four attempts have no LCP observation. These buckets describe a single simulated mobile load; they are not a field Core Web Vitals assessment. A browser run can vary with hosting response, third-party scripts, machine load and the page state. Before choosing a remediation, inspect the actual LCP element and loading waterfall, then repeat on representative pages and devices. In a website brief, request a recorded baseline, an agreed test setup and a comparison after the change. The meaningful deliverable is an explained loading improvement under comparable conditions, followed by real-user monitoring where sufficient traffic is available. A category score alone does not identify the cause.
Accessibility: inspect the failed check, then use the page
Contrast was flagged on 17 of 26 eligible pages; heading order on 12 of 26; accessible link names on 11 of 26; image alternatives on two of 26; and button names on two of 21. The form-label check flagged zero of nine eligible pages. Seventeen reports marked that check not applicable, so zero of nine must not be described as all 26 forms passing. Automated checks cover only part of accessibility. They cannot certify WCAG conformance or tell us whether a person can understand and complete the whole task. Ask the implementation team to reproduce each issue, document the affected component and test the repair. Add manual keyboard navigation, visible focus, zoom, meaningful reading order, error recovery and assistive-technology review appropriate to the project. Preserve both the automated result and the manual acceptance evidence.
Contact links are an invitation, not proof of delivery
The separate HTML retrieval produced 27 usable responses. We detected explicit WhatsApp links in 19, mail links in 17, telephone links in 11 and contact-language links in 22. Channels overlap: adding those counts would double-count sites. The collector reads delivered HTML without running JavaScript, and the contact-language rule is a heuristic. A missing detection does not establish that the rendered site lacks a channel; a detected link does not establish visibility, correct routing, response time or successful delivery. No messages or forms were sent to these providers. When commissioning your own website, separately verify the complete inquiry path with an authorized test: context retained, validation usable, submission stored, notification delivered and a named person responsible for follow-up. Count a link click as intent, not as a received lead.
A concrete journey to inspect
The A medio tono project provides a separate example of delivered Dardo work, outside this study cohort. In our dated public check, choosing Piano opened a filtered teacher list, and opening Sara Alfonso showed instrument, location, class formats and a contact link carrying the teacher's name. That is a reproducible product decision: the visitor moves from an interest to a relevant person while retaining context. The verification record appears in the sources and the full project case is linked in the research panel. It does not establish that a message was delivered, a class booked or enrollment increased. For a comparable service business, use the same acceptance pattern: choose a service, inspect relevant evidence, retain the chosen context and reach the correct inquiry destination. Commercial outcome claims require separate, approved records with comparable periods and clear definitions.
Reproduce the method and understand the gaps
We used Lighthouse 13.5.0 through Google's documented CLI, with a fresh headless Chrome profile for each serial run. The default mobile setup uses a 412 × 823 CSS-pixel viewport, device pixel ratio 1.75, simulated 150 ms RTT, 1,638.4 Kbps throughput and 4× CPU slowdown. The dataset preserves each timestamp, settings, browser environment, final URL, warnings and raw-report hash. A separate HTTPS HTML request records explicit source signals. Two runs encountered Chrome security interstitials and two encountered document-request errors; they remain unavailable without retries or bypasses. SingleClick's report warns about redirection to its English page, and that warning is retained. Our initial PageSpeed API probe had no public quota, so no API or field data are included. Download the manifest, observations and collector from the research panel. Run the collector with Python, curl, Node/npm and Chrome; expect the measurements to change as sites and environments change.
Disclosure, correction and a usable project brief
Dardo sells web design and development services and therefore has a commercial interest in this subject. We excluded our own site and clients from the sample, kept failures visible, published the source manifest and listed sites alphabetically instead of ordering suppliers by score. These controls do not remove selection bias. Treat this edition as an inspectable diagnostic snapshot. A provider can request a correction through Dardo's contact page by identifying the URL, field, date and supporting evidence; a corrected edition should describe the change rather than silently replace inconvenient observations. For your own brief, choose one important customer task, agree which devices and languages matter, name the content and inquiry owners, and require a dated acceptance record. That gives a design proposal something concrete to deliver and a future commercial evaluation something honest to measure.
Sources & editorial notes
Sources
- Google: Lighthouse overview and CLIdeveloper.chrome.com
- Google: Lighthouse performance scoringdeveloper.chrome.com
- W3C: selecting accessibility evaluation toolsw3.org
- A medio tono: dated public journey checkdardo.studio
How we built this guide
EvidenceThis guide combines 4 linked sources, Dardo’s analysis and clearly labeled project examples.
LimitsVisible design and content decisions are not presented as measured ranking, traffic or conversion gains.
Read our editorial policy