🎩 The landing page audit tool for agencies
Ferguson is the landing page audit tool built for agencies. It reads client pages as a cold visitor would, then produces a professional, evidence-based report you can deliver, use as a pitch, or share to start a conversation before a proposal has been written.
Audit your first client page →The prospecting play
The hardest part of winning new work is demonstrating you understand the problem before you have been hired. Ferguson reads the prospect's page, ranks every issue by conversion impact, and writes the evidence, so you arrive at the first meeting with a report, not just a pitch.
The highest-impact fixes come first
Issues are ranked so the most costly conversion problems are immediately visible, useful when you need to make a fast case.
Written evidence, not assumptions
Every problem identified is grounded in something specific found on the page: quoted, referenced, not invented.
The rewrite, not just the note
Where it counts, Ferguson composes the corrected copy, so the prospect sees the fix, not just the diagnosis.
The client deliverable
Your clients have read their own pages so many times the words have stopped meaning anything. Ferguson hasn't. He arrives cold, reads carefully, and delivers a specific report on exactly what a visitor would make of it, and what would make them stay.
Every observation is grounded in what is actually on the page. Not a generic checklist. Not recycled advice written for someone else's business entirely.
Whitelabel PDF reports
Replace the Ferguson name and logo with your own agency branding. On the Agency plan, the report lands as yours.
Band, not a score
Every page is placed in one of four clear bands: Strong, Converting well, Room to improve, or Losing visitors.
Re-audit to show progress
Make the recommended changes, re-audit, and hand the client evidence the work moved the needle.
The benchmark
An opinion can be dismissed. Data is harder to argue with. Ferguson shows exactly what percentage of sites in the same category share each issue, so “your page is losing visitors to competitors” becomes a specific claim backed by evidence, not a consultant's hunch.
A history generic AI doesn't have
Ferguson retains what it has already audited. A single AI prompt starts cold every time, with no memory of any other page.
Where your client is losing ground
Which issues are common across their category, and how far behind the benchmark they have drifted.
Where they already have an edge
For each of the 12 core checks, see exactly where they sit in relation to comparable sites.
Assessment
https://flowsync.io
Goal: Free trial sign-up
Across 10 SaaS pages Ferguson has audited, the typical result is Converting well - this page falls below that.
Executive Summary
Flowsync's homepage communicates its niche positioning - project management built specifically for design teams - with genuine clarity. The headline passes the five-second test and the visual hierarchy is well-considered. There is real differentiation here worth preserving and building upon.
The page falters where trust is needed most. The trial CTA leads to a seven-field sign-up form; the only social proof is a single unattributed quote; and no pricing signal is visible for visitors ready to evaluate cost. Visitors who arrive motivated are given insufficient reason to commit.
Three changes would meaningfully lift conversions without redesign: reduce sign-up to email only, add a "no card required" assurance beside the primary CTA, and introduce two or three named customer testimonials. Each is a quick-win that requires copy changes only.
Ferguson's note: I gave Specific Claims and Trust a partial each rather than outright fails - "feedback rounds in half the time" is a genuine anchor that earns the half-point, and "no credit card required" does real work reducing trial friction. One more quantified claim and a single named testimonial would push both to a full pass.
What's working
Inferred audience
Who - Design leads and creative directors at mid-size agencies and in-house teams who are frustrated with generic PM tools that ignore how design review and feedback actually works.
Arriving as - Warm traffic from design community channels - Dribbble, Designer News, Twitter. They already believe the problem is real; they're evaluating whether Flowsync is the right solution.
Core fear - Another tool the team won't actually adopt. They've tried Asana and Notion and neither stuck - this feels like the same risk.
Alternative - Notion boards, Figma comments, or just shared Slack threads. Messy but free and already in use.
Who it's unintentionally repelling
Solo freelancers who don't have a team to collaborate with - the product's framing is entirely team-oriented and signals "not for you" immediately. Also likely repelling developers and PMs who happen to land here: the design-specific vocabulary reads as exclusionary rather than specialised.
Biggest unanswered question
“How is this actually different from using a Notion board or Figma comments for design reviews - what does Flowsync do that I can't already do with the tools my team already has?”
Each issue is benchmarked against real SaaSpages Ferguson has audited. That's context a generic LLM prompt has no way to give you.
Benchmark
Competitive opportunity
64% of SaaSpages we've audited have this type of issue.Fixing this puts you ahead of about half your competitors.Based on 142+ real audits, not a guess from a generic prompt
Benchmark
Common blind spot
81% of SaaSpages we've audited have this type of issue.Most competitors struggle here too, so fixing it brings you in line with best practices.Based on 142+ real audits, not a guess from a generic prompt
Benchmark
Rare issue
Only 16% of SaaSpages we've audited have this type of issue.Most sites get this right, so this is a quick fix to catch up to the majority.Based on 142+ real audits, not a guess from a generic prompt
Ahead of 18% of SaaS pages on this check
Behind 61% of SaaS pages on this check
"Ship projects faster" appears without numbers, but the "feedback rounds in half the time" claim gives a partial anchor.
On par with other SaaS pages, most don't pass this either
On par with other SaaS pages, they pass this too
A free trial is a medium-commitment ask; trust signals are thin, though "No credit card required" partially compensates.
~ Borderline - the note explains what was found and what would push it to a clear pass.
Give Ferguson two pages: your client's and a competitor's. He reads each independently as a cold visitor, then delivers a side-by-side analysis grounded in what he actually observed on each page.
Reads both pages fresh
Each domain is read independently before any comparison is drawn. No anchoring, no shortcuts.
Evidence before verdict
Each comparison dimension shows exactly what was observed on each page before a winner is called.
In your client's voice
Every suggestion is grounded in your client's own brand language. The goal is differentiation, not imitation.
Focus leads
yourclient.com
4 of 6 dimensions
vs
competitor.com
2 dimensions leading
Anchor the headline to a specific outcome
competitor.com leads with a value claim tied to a concrete result. yourclient.com describes the service without stating the transformation. Rewriting the hero around the specific outcome would close this gap.
Pricing
150 credits per month, whitelabel PDF reports, and competitor analysis included.
1 Credit = 1 Single-page audit
Agency
Cancel anytime · Refund policy
Get started
Choose a plan to get started. Cancel anytime.
By signing up you'll occasionally receive product news from Ferguson. Unsubscribe any time.
Already have an account? Sign in →