Wakaris Index 2026: the technical state of the Spanish web across 4,590 companies

The index measures the technical state of the home page of 4,590 Spanish company websites. It doesn’t judge design, content or business: it counts how many of the 55 checks fail and how severely.

The average Spanish website has 20.17 findings: 4.79 critical, 11.50 important and 3.88 improvement. The figure that best sums up the landscape isn’t that average but its clean end: only 6 websites out of 4,590 have no critical findings at all, 0.13%. Across all the work done, 92,573 of the 251,959 checks run detected a failure, an overall rate of 36.7%.

Of the five most widespread failures, only one is critical, and it is the one that matters most: 94.9% of websites don’t reach the performance thresholds Google uses as a ranking criterion. The other four describe a poorly maintained landscape: security headers that aren’t sent, software versions on display and files served without compression or caching.

Wakaris analyzed 4,590 Spanish company websites between September 1 and 3, 2026. They all went through the same set of 55 automated checks, with no exceptions and no later selection, across 14 business sectors and 52 provinces, with the classification assigned before anything was analyzed.

Each percentage is calculated on the websites where that check could run, not on the total: that is why 251,959 checks were run and not the exact product of websites times checks. Only provinces with 50 or more websites enter the provincial ranking, and any cell with fewer than 30 observations is suppressed as an insufficient sample.

The method’s limits are what make everything above credible: the analysis is automated, looks at the home page of each domain in a single load and detects what can be seen from the outside, without access to the server or the content management system, so it doesn’t replace a manual review. Anyone can run the same check on their own website, free and without creating an account, by putting it through Wakaris.

Average critical findings per website, in provinces with 50 or more websites. Ceuta and Melilla are left out, with 9 and 5 websites: publishing an average from that sample would be making up a figure.

Three of the four best-scoring provinces are in Galicia. It is a fact of the data and is published as such: the index has nothing to explain it with.

The index’s critical finding is performance, and it has a direct consequence. Core Web Vitals are the three metrics Google uses to assess a page’s experience: LCP, which measures how long the main content takes to appear and should be 2.5 seconds or less; INP, which measures responsiveness to interaction and should be 200 milliseconds or less; and CLS, which measures visual stability and should be 0.1 or less.

The documentation also specifies how it is judged: the threshold is measured at the 75th percentile of real page loads, and mobile and desktop are assessed separately. It isn’t enough for it to be fast on the computer of whoever built it.

With 94.9% of the landscape falling short, performance doesn’t set anyone apart in Spain today: it is a common floor, not an advantage. The interesting part is the flip side: whoever does make it stands apart from almost their entire sector.

What follows are working hypotheses, not conclusions of the index. The data says what happens; the why has to be reasoned out.

The first is that the five most widespread failures come built in. None of them requires doing anything wrong: they are what an unconfigured template or hosting delivers, and staying with the defaults takes no effort at all.

The second is that nobody looks. A company website is delivered, approved because it looks good, and not reviewed again until the next redesign. None of these five failures produces a visible symptom: the page loads, looks fine and works.

The third is that performance degrades on its own. A website that started out fast piles up tracking pixels, chats, fonts and embedded videos, and each addition is requested by someone different without anyone measuring the cumulative cost.

Start by knowing where you stand, because these figures describe a landscape, not your website: run it through Wakaris and keep your critical findings.

One, what can be fixed from the hosting without touching the design: turn on compression and caching for static files, as the guide on caching and compression explains. Two, add the standard security headers and stop advertising the software version, following the guides on security headers and technical information exposure. These are configuration changes, with no risk to content.

Three, performance, which is the critical one and the one that takes the most work: review images, render-blocking resources and everything that has been embedded over the years. The guide on performance metrics covers it, and the details on layout recalculations are in the one on rendering cost.