Every number, and where it came from.
Most agency websites quote numbers with nothing behind them. This page lists every performance figure we publish, the tool that produced it, the date it was taken, and what it does not prove. Where a number can be checked by you in under a minute, there is a link to check it.
If something here is wrong, we would rather hear it than keep it. There is a correction path at the bottom and a dated log of what has changed.
Foundation Implants, measured 2026-09-02.
These are the numbers behind the case study and the 100/100 SEO figure on our homepage. One run of Google PageSpeed Insights against foundationimplants.com at 22:55 MT on 2026-09-02.
| Metric | Desktop | Mobile |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 100/100 | 91/100 |
| Accessibility | 96/100 | 92/100 |
| Best practices | 96/100 | 96/100 |
| SEO | 100/100 | 100/100 |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 0.8s | 3.4s |
| First Contentful Paint | 0.4s | 1.9s |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0 | 0 |
Your run will not match ours exactly. It should land close. If it does not, we want to know.
What these figures do not prove.
They are lab numbers, not real visitors.
PageSpeed runs the page on a simulated device over a throttled connection in a data centre. It is not a record of what anyone actually experienced. Google publishes real-visitor data separately, and this site does not have enough traffic to generate it, which PageSpeed reports as no data rather than as a good result.
It is one run, and runs vary.
Performance scores move a few points between runs on the same unchanged page, because the test machine and the network are shared. Treat a score as a band, not a reading. A move from 91 to 88 is noise. A move from 91 to 55 is a problem.
An SEO score of 100 is not a ranking.
This is the one most often oversold, including by people quoting it at you. PageSpeed's SEO category checks that a page is technically fit to be crawled and understood: titles, descriptions, crawlability, readable text, valid structure. It says nothing about whether you outrank anyone. It is a check that the basics are correct, and most sites we look at fail parts of it. Correct basics are necessary. They are not sufficient.
They describe one page on one date.
The figures above are the home page, not every page on the site. Scores also drift over time as content is added and as Google changes how it scores. That is why the date sits next to every number here rather than in a footnote.
What we do not claim.
Some of these we used to. They came off the site in September 2026 because we could not stand behind them.
- / Traffic or lead growth. We do not publish before-and-after traffic figures, because we do not yet have enough history across enough sites to show you something meaningful rather than something flattering. When we do, it will be dated and sourced like everything else here.
- / Rankings, or any promise about them. Nobody can promise a position on Google, and a quoted ranking without the search term, the location and the date is not information.
- / A load time for your future site. We used to say every build loads in under a second. Load time depends on your images, your hosting, your plugins and the phone in your customer's hand. We build for speed and we will measure yours, but the number is earned, not promised.
- / Round statistics with no source. If a figure appears on this site without somewhere to trace it to, it is a mistake and we want to hear about it.
How our work is labelled.
Everything in our portfolio is labelled as what it actually is. A site carries a client label only when we were hired to build it. Our own products and studio projects are labelled as ours, because a portfolio that quietly counts your own side projects as client work is telling you something untrue about how busy the studio is.
The same applies to reviews and testimonials. The quote on our home page is from a client, it is his own wording, and it links to the review he left on Google so you can read it where we cannot edit it.
Found a number that looks wrong?
Tell us what you measured and how, and we will check it. If you are right, the number changes and the change gets a dated line in the log below with the correction credited. If we cannot reproduce what you saw, we will tell you that instead of quietly leaving it.
What has changed, and when.
Published this page. Performance figures moved into one shared file so the case study and this page cannot disagree about them.
Re-measured Foundation Implants and replaced figures from 2026-05-07. Removed five testimonials that were written as placeholders rather than given by real clients, an unsourced statistics strip, a claim that every build loads in under a second, a claim that builds rank on Google from day one, and a description of a feature on a portfolio site that was not actually running. Corrected the practice location to Lone Tree.
First published PageSpeed figures for the Foundation Implants case study.
Want this level of detail about your own site?
Free 30-minute call. We will run the same checks on your site while you watch and tell you which numbers are worth caring about.