Website Responsiveness Checker

Free SEO Utility

Mobile Friendly Test

A mobile friendly test checks whether a webpage actually works on a phone or tablet, not just a desktop screen. This free AudEsto tool does that two ways: pick any modern device - mobile, tablet, laptop, or desktop - for a live preview, and get a real 0-100 responsiveness score built from the page's actual viewport tag, CSS media query breakpoints, responsive images, flexible layout, text readability, and mobile meta tags.

Pick Any Modern Device
Plus a 4-device showcase preview
6-Signal Responsiveness Score
0-100 with a letter grade
Real CSS Media Queries
Not just a visual guess
SSRF-Hardened & Rate-Limited
10 free checks/day

Enter a Page URL

We'll preview the live page across devices and analyze its viewport/CSS

Enter a page URL above and click "Check Responsiveness" to see its live device preview and full responsiveness score.

What a Mobile Friendly Test Actually Checks

A mobile friendly test checks whether a webpage is usable on a phone or tablet, not just a full-size desktop screen - readable text without zooming, no horizontal scrolling, a layout that reflows instead of forcing a shrunken desktop view into a small window. Enter a URL above and this tool runs that test two ways: pick any modern phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop from the dropdown for a live spotlight preview, see a fixed four-device showcase (desktop, laptop, tablet, mobile) alongside it, and get a 0-100 responsiveness score built from the page's real HTML and CSS - viewport configuration, media query breakpoints, responsive images, flexible layout, text readability, and mobile meta tags.

Most free mobile-friendly checkers stop at the visual preview and leave you to judge the CSS by eye. This one also fetches the page's linked stylesheets and parses the real @media rules inside them, so the score reflects what the code actually does, not just what one screenshot suggests. It's built for SEO consultants running a mobile-friendliness audit, developers verifying a responsive fix before deploying it, agencies adding a QA step before a client site goes live, and site owners who just want to know if their site works on a phone. This is one of AudEsto's free SEO utilities - no account is needed to run a check.

How to Test If Your Website Is Mobile Friendly

  1. Enter the URL. Paste the full address of the page you want to test, including the protocol (https://).
  2. Verify you're human. Click Check Responsiveness and complete the quick reCAPTCHA check - this keeps the tool from being scripted and abused, so it stays free and fast for everyone.
  3. Pick a device and look at the showcase. Choose any device from the dropdown for a close-up spotlight preview, and scan the four-device showcase for overflow, squished text, or elements that don't reflow.
  4. Read the score and checklist. The score ring shows the overall 0-100 result; each of the six scored signals below explains exactly what's wrong and how to fix it.

Each browser or IP gets a set number of checks per day. That's enough to test a handful of key templates in one sitting - the homepage, a representative landing page, and a product or article template, since a fix on one template page typically applies to every page built from it.

What Happened to Google's Mobile-Friendly Test?

If you've searched for "google mobile friendly test" recently, the tool you might remember is gone. Google retired its standalone Mobile-Friendly Test in December 2023. Mobile-first indexing had made a separate pass/fail checker less central to how Google evaluates pages, so the equivalent checks moved into the URL Inspection tool inside Search Console and the Rich Results Test. That works well if you own the site and have it verified in Search Console - it's not much help for checking a competitor's page, a client's site before you're onboarded, or a page on a platform you don't administer. This tool fills that gap for anyone with a URL, and adds a breakdown of exactly which CSS and markup signals are driving the result, rather than a single verdict.

How the Responsiveness Score Is Calculated

The 0-100 score is a weighted sum of six components, each scored independently from the page's real, live HTML and CSS - nothing here is guessed from the visual preview:

SignalMax PointsWhat It Checks
Viewport Meta Tag20Presence of a correctly configured <meta name="viewport"> tag, and whether it disables pinch-to-zoom
Media Query Breakpoints25Real @media rules parsed from every linked stylesheet plus inline <style> blocks, and whether mobile/tablet/desktop bands are all covered
Responsive Images15Use of srcset, sizes, or <picture> so images can adapt to different screen widths
Flexible Layout15Flexbox/grid/percentage-width usage weighed against fixed wide-pixel containers not gated behind a media query
Text Readability & Zoom15Sub-12px font-size declarations and whether the viewport tag blocks zooming
Mobile Meta & Icons10Apple touch icon, theme-color, mobile-web-app-capable, and web app manifest

Grades map to the total: A (90-100), B (75-89), C (60-74), D (45-59), and F (below 45).

How the Check Works

The tool fetches the page's HTML directly, then finds every linked stylesheet (up to 8) and downloads each one to search for real @media rules and their pixel breakpoints, combining that with any inline <style> blocks on the page. It checks the viewport meta tag's exact content string, counts <img> tags using srcset/sizes/<picture>, scans the collected CSS for flexbox/grid/percentage-width usage versus fixed wide-pixel widths sitting outside any media query, and reads font-size declarations for anything under 12px. The device previews, shown separately above the score, embed the actual URL in scaled iframes entirely in your browser - they need no extra server round trip and consume no extra credit.

Honest limitation: the score is computed from the page's raw CSS, not a rendered browser engine - it can tell you that media queries and flexible layout techniques exist and roughly how they're distributed, but it can't verify every element visually reflows the way you'd want. That's exactly why the device previews sit right next to the score: use them for a visual gut check and the checklist for what to fix.

Reading Your Results

The results panel breaks into three parts:

  • The device picker and showcase let you inspect the real page at any modern screen size, plus a desktop/laptop/tablet/mobile lineup side by side - the fastest way to spot obvious breakage like overlapping text or a horizontal scrollbar.
  • The score ring shows the 0-100 total and letter grade at a glance - use it to track whether a change actually moved the needle after you run the check again.
  • The checklist lists all six scored signals individually, color-coded green/amber/red, each with a plain-language explanation of what was found and, where relevant, what to do about it.

Why Mobile-Friendliness Matters for SEO

It's worth being precise about what's a direct ranking factor here and what isn't. Google has used mobile-first indexing since 2019 - the mobile version of a page is what gets crawled and evaluated, full stop, which is a direct mechanical fact about how indexing works. Whether a specific layout bug costs you rankings is a different, indirect question: a broken mobile layout doesn't trigger a penalty by itself, but it does drive up bounce rate and drive down time-on-page, and those engagement signals feed back into rankings over time. Treat the score below as a diagnostic, not a ranking score in itself.

  • The viewport tag is foundational, not optional. Without it, every other responsive technique on the page is effectively disabled, since the mobile browser renders at a fixed desktop-like width regardless of what the CSS says - this is why it carries real weight in this tool's score.
  • Media queries do the actual adapting. A page can have a viewport tag and still look broken on mobile if its CSS never changes anything at narrower widths - this is the single most commonly missed piece, and the main thing this tool checks that a purely visual preview can't.
  • Fixed-width containers are a frequent silent bug. A single width: 1200px on a wrapper div, left ungated by a media query, is enough to force horizontal scrolling on every mobile visitor even if the rest of the page is perfectly responsive.
  • Small text and zoom-locking compound each other. Disabling pinch-to-zoom is a genuine accessibility failure (WCAG 1.4.4) precisely because it removes the one workaround users have for text that's too small to read comfortably.

A Practical Example

Example: a legacy blog theme
Input

A five-year-old blog theme, checked with the Samsung Galaxy S23 selected in the dropdown.

Result

Score of 52/100 (D): the viewport tag was present and correct (20/20), but only 2 media queries were found and neither covered the mobile band under 600px (5/25), and a .container { width: 980px; } rule sat outside any media query, triggering a fixed-width penalty (4/15).

What it means

The showcase confirmed it visually: the mobile frame showed the desktop layout shrunk down with a horizontal scrollbar, exactly what the fixed 980px container and missing mobile breakpoint predicted.

Recommended action

Add a @media (max-width: 600px) block that overrides .container to width: 100%; max-width: 100%; first - that single change would likely resolve the mobile overflow and move both the media-query and flexible-layout scores up significantly.

Common Causes of a Failed Mobile Friendly Test

  • Missing or misconfigured viewport tag. The most common single cause - without width=device-width, nothing else the CSS does matters on mobile.
  • No media queries, or ones that don't cover mobile. A stylesheet with desktop-only breakpoints leaves phones stuck rendering the desktop layout.
  • Fixed-pixel containers. A wrapper, table, or embed with a hardcoded wide pixel width forces horizontal scrolling regardless of how well everything else adapts.
  • Non-responsive images. A full-width hero image with no srcset either overflows the viewport or forces a phone to download a desktop-sized file.
  • Tiny, unreadable text combined with a zoom lock. Small font sizes are recoverable if users can zoom - disabling zoom removes that fallback entirely.

Real-World Use Cases

  • Pre-launch and post-redesign checks. Confirm a new theme or template actually works across device widths before it goes live.
  • Agency QA checklists. Add a mobile friendly test alongside meta tag, speed, and broken-link checks before a client site ships.
  • Before/after verification. Fix one issue - add a breakpoint, remove a fixed-width container - and re-run the check to confirm the score and preview both improved.
  • Template and theme validation. Check one representative page from a shared template; a fix there usually applies to every page built from it.
  • Client reporting. The device showcase is an easy, non-technical way to show a client exactly what a mobile visitor sees, without them needing to squint at their own phone.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Trusting the visual preview alone. A page can look fine in a quick preview scroll and still have real underlying issues (tiny text, a barely-there breakpoint) that only show up on an actual device - use the checklist alongside the preview, not instead of it.
  • Adding a viewport tag without testing further. A viewport tag alone earns 20 of the available 100 points - it's necessary but not sufficient; the layout still needs media queries and flexible sizing to actually adapt.
  • Fixing the preview but not the CSS. If a device frame looks fine because the target site happens to have a narrow max-width already, don't assume the underlying breakpoint coverage is strong - check the score, not just the preview.
  • Assuming one page represents the whole site. A homepage built on a modern responsive theme and a legacy landing page can have very different scores - check more than one template before drawing conclusions site-wide.

Expert Recommendations

Fix in the order the score weights things: the viewport tag first if it's missing (20 points, and it unlocks everything else), then media query coverage for the mobile band specifically (worth the most - 25 points), then flexible layout and responsive images. Small font sizes and mobile meta polish matter but move the needle less - don't spend disproportionate time there before the structural fixes are done.

One thing worth knowing before you chase a perfect score: a site can pass every check here and still feel awkward on a real phone, because CSS-level correctness and touch usability are related but not identical. Real-device testing on your own phone (not just this preview) is still worth five minutes before a launch, specifically for tap-target spacing and anything that depends on hover - a menu that only opens on mouseover, for instance, can have flawless media queries and still be unusable on a touchscreen.

Re-run the check after every meaningful change rather than batching several fixes and testing once - it's the only way to confirm which specific change actually improved the device preview and the score, especially since CDN or browser caching can make an old version look unchanged for a few minutes after a real fix ships.

Limitations to Keep in Mind

  • Some sites block iframe embedding (X-Frame-Options/CSP frame-ancestors) - when that happens the device preview stays blank even though the score and checklist, which come from a direct fetch, still work normally.
  • The score is computed from the page's raw CSS, not a rendered browser engine - it measures whether responsive techniques exist and how they're distributed, not a pixel-by-pixel visual diff.
  • Up to 8 linked stylesheets are fetched and analyzed per check - a page with far more than that will still get an accurate read on its most common breakpoints, with the rest simply not contributing further evidence either way.
  • Content loaded by JavaScript after the initial page load (some single-page apps) isn't included in the HTML/CSS analysis, though it will still appear in the device preview since that's a real browser render.
  • This tool doesn't replicate Google's own crawler or its rendering environment - it's an independent mobile friendly test, not a guarantee of how Search Console would evaluate the same page.

Run the mobile friendly test above against any live URL to see its device preview and full score in a few seconds - it's free, and no account is required.

Frequently Asked Questions

A mobile friendly test checks whether a webpage is usable and well-formatted on a phone or tablet, not just a desktop screen. This tool runs that test two ways at once: it renders the real, live page inside device-shaped frames so you can see the layout with your own eyes, and it fetches the page's actual HTML and CSS to score six verifiable signals - viewport configuration, media query breakpoints, responsive images, flexible layout, text readability, and mobile meta tags - into a 0-100 score.

Google used to run a standalone tool called the Mobile-Friendly Test, which rendered a URL in a simulated mobile browser and returned a pass/fail verdict. Google retired that standalone tool in December 2023, folding equivalent checks into the URL Inspection tool in Search Console and the Rich Results Test. This AudEsto tool fills the same gap for anyone - no Search Console access or site ownership required - and goes further by also scoring the underlying CSS, not just rendering a verdict.

Paste the page's URL into the box above and run the check. Pick any modern phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop from the dropdown to see a live spotlight preview, alongside a fixed four-device showcase, plus a 0-100 responsiveness score with a breakdown of exactly what's working and what isn't - no browser extension, Search Console access, or physical device required.

A mobile-friendly page uses a viewport meta tag so phone browsers render at the device's actual width instead of a shrunken desktop layout, CSS media queries that adjust the layout at different breakpoints, flexible layout techniques (flexbox, grid, percentage widths) instead of fixed pixel widths, and responsive images that don't force a phone to download a desktop-sized file. This tool checks all four directly against the page's real markup.

A media query is a CSS rule (@media) that applies different styles depending on the screen's width, so a layout built for a desktop can rearrange itself for a phone. This tool fetches the page's linked stylesheets and inline styles and counts real @media rules and their breakpoints, rather than guessing from a visual preview - most free mobile-friendly checkers skip this step entirely.

Indirectly, yes, and directly in one specific way: Google has used mobile-first indexing since 2019, meaning the mobile version of a page - not the desktop version - is what gets crawled and evaluated for ranking. A page that fails this test doesn't automatically get demoted, but a broken mobile layout (overflow, tiny text, unusable navigation) drives up bounce rate and drives down engagement, both of which correlate with worse rankings over time. Page Experience signals like Core Web Vitals are measured on mobile by default too.

Some sites send an X-Frame-Options or Content-Security-Policy header that blocks their page from being embedded in an iframe on another domain - this is a deliberate security setting on their end, not a bug in this tool. When that happens, the score and checklist still run normally since they come from a direct fetch, not the preview, and each device frame includes an "open in new tab" link as a fallback.

The score is a weighted sum across six signals: viewport meta tag configuration (20 points), CSS media query breakpoint coverage (25), responsive images (15), flexible layout vs fixed-width usage (15), text readability and zoom (15), and mobile meta tags/icons (10). Each signal is scored independently from the page's real, live HTML and CSS - nothing is estimated or rendered in a browser engine.

Each check requires completing a quick reCAPTCHA verification, and there's a daily limit per browser/IP so the tool stays free and available for everyone. The remaining count for the day is shown next to the check button after your first run.