Enter a URL and this test inspects the page markup and linked CSS for responsive signals — a viewport meta tag, fluid layout rules, responsive media handling, and fixed-width clues — then combines them into a 0–100 readiness score.
Pro tip: A missing viewport meta tag costs the most points, so fix that first before tuning responsive CSS.
Seven structural signals feed the score, each worth a fixed share of the 100 points. The viewport meta tag carries the most weight because without it a mobile browser will not scale the layout correctly. Responsive CSS is judged from inline styles and up to six linked stylesheets, looking for media queries, container queries, fluid width rules, flex/grid patterns, and framework breakpoint clues. The fixed-width check hunts for large pixel widths declared inline, in linked CSS, or as attributes that tend to break narrow screens.
The remaining points cover heavy iframe embeds, wide table layouts, and the presence of touch-target controls such as inputs and buttons. Each signal is graded Strong, Partial, or Missing, and any signal short of full marks generates a matching suggestion.
Points from all seven signals are summed and clamped to a 0–100 range. A total of 80 or more is labelled Mobile-friendly, 55 to 79 is Needs improvement, and anything below 55 is Not mobile-friendly. Because the viewport tag and responsive CSS together account for a large slice of the score, a page that omits both will struggle to clear the top band even if everything else looks fine.
This is a markup-based estimate. It does not render the page, simulate a phone, or measure tap-target spacing in pixels the way a real device would. Google retired its own Mobile-Friendly Test tool and its API in late 2023, so this is not that tool and the score will not match it. Read the result as a fast structural sanity check: it tells you whether the responsive scaffolding is present in the HTML, not whether the rendered experience is flawless.
If you only fix one thing, add a viewport meta tag — it is worth twenty points and is the most common reason a page lands in the not-friendly band. Make sure your responsive CSS is in normal inline styles or linked stylesheets the scanner can read, and use media queries, container queries, fluid widths, or flex/grid rules so the responsive-CSS signal scores fairly. Convert important images to srcset or picture markup, or keep them fluid with CSS, and audit your HTML and CSS for fixed widths of 800 pixels or more. Because tables and iframes each cost points, wrap wide tables in an overflow container and load only the embeds a mobile reader truly needs.
This is a markup-based estimate. It does not render the page, simulate a phone, or measure tap-target spacing in pixels the way a real device would. Google retired its own Mobile-Friendly Test tool and its API in late 2023, so this is not that tool and the score will not match it. Read the result as a fast structural sanity check: it tells you whether the responsive scaffolding is present in the HTML, not whether the rendered experience is flawless. For the real-world picture, view the page on an actual phone and check mobile Core Web Vitals with the Page Speed Test.
You provide only a URL. The page is fetched once from our edge and its markup is scanned to produce the score; nothing about the page is stored. Because the request is anonymous and unauthenticated, only publicly reachable pages can be tested.
Input: https://example.com/article
Output: Mobile score 92/100 · Verdict Mobile-friendly · Viewport Yes. Signals: viewport Strong, responsive CSS Strong (4 media queries), responsive media Strong, fixed-width clues Strong.
All the structural responsive signals are present, so the page clears the top band comfortably.
Input: https://example.com/old-layout
Output: Mobile score 38/100 · Verdict Not mobile-friendly · Viewport No. Suggested fixes: add a viewport meta tag, add responsive CSS rules, and avoid large fixed pixel widths.
A missing viewport plus fixed widths drags the score below the not-friendly threshold.
Input: https://example.com/pricing
Output: Mobile score 74/100 · Verdict Needs improvement · Viewport Yes. Signals: viewport Strong, responsive CSS Partial (1 media query), responsive media Missing, fixed-width clues Strong.
Adding another responsive CSS signal and fluid image handling would lift this out of the middle band.
Not necessarily. Google's standalone Mobile-Friendly Test was discontinued in 2023, and this tool uses its own markup heuristic. Use it as a quick structural check rather than an official verdict.
The test reads the initial HTML. If your responsive behaviour comes from JavaScript or from CSS the scanner cannot fully evaluate, the structural signals it looks for may be absent even though the rendered page works.
Yes. It is the single highest-weighted signal because without a viewport meta tag mobile browsers fall back to a desktop-width layout, which is the most common cause of a non-friendly result.
The checker looks for srcset, picture elements, or CSS rules that keep image and media elements fluid. Pages with no image tags are not penalized for missing responsive image markup.
The seven signals are summed and clamped to 0–100. A total of 80 or more is Mobile-friendly, 55 to 79 is Needs improvement, and anything below 55 is Not mobile-friendly.
Tables and iframes can break narrow layouts or pull in heavy payloads, so each one beyond zero reduces those signals. If yours is handled responsively, treat the deduction as a prompt to confirm that rather than a real fault.
Our editorial and data-source notes explain how each check works and where estimates come from.