# Pescantina businesses: how many have a website, and how well it works Source: [Home](https://www.nfw.run/en)[State of the web](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web) // State of the web, October 2026 [v1.1.0](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/method/changelog#v1.1.0) We counted almost **500** Pescantina businesses and checked their websites in October **2026**. Of these, just over **350** list a website, but more than one business in two has no working website. [Go to the data](#data) [How does my site rank](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit) Loading the map 477 businesses shown of 477 mapped in Pescantina Map generated from [Overture Maps](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/overture-maps) data of September **18**, **2026**. Restaurants43Cafés6Bars and pubs26Food shops19Lodging25Travel9Fashion and beauty19Home and tech30Other shops19Automotive24Professional services20Legal1Finance7Real estate12Industry44Construction43Health21Dentists7Beauty and wellness34Sport and fitness25Pets7Education8Creative and media20Events and leisure6Local services2 // At a glance ## The numbers to remember - have a working website - 49% - of almost **500** businesses counted - The rest, just over **250**, have no website, or list one that does not open: an address that does not answer, a social profile. - to show the main content, on a phone - 6.8 s - median of just over **200** sites, mean **9.4 s** - More than three sites in four take longer than **4** seconds, the point Google calls poor. Past **3** seconds, **53%** of people on a phone leave the page. - describe themselves to Google in full (structured data) - 4% - of almost **250** businesses with a working website - Name, address, phone, website and opening hours in a block Google and AI assistants read without guessing. - have a valid sitemap - 78% - of just over **230** working sites - **23%** of sites do not hand Google the list of their pages, which it uses to find them all. - median AI score, out of 100 - 80 - across just over **230** working sites, mean **71.4** - How well **ChatGPT**, **Claude** or **Gemini** can read and cite the site; half the sites score above it, half below. For general searches, reviews and ratings count as much. Want to know where your site sits among these numbers?[Run the free SEO audit](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit) // The report in plain words ## What a customer finds when looking for a business in Pescantina Here the numbers are told the way people using these sites experience them: a customer looking for a restaurant on their phone, a tourist checking a shop's opening hours, someone asking an AI assistant for a dentist nearby. [The detailed technical data is further down](#charts). ### The Pescantina economy online: businesses and their websites How many businesses there are, in which sectors, and how many have a website that actually opens. The **489** businesses we counted, by sector. The three largest: industry (**9%**), restaurants (**8.8%**), and construction (**8.8%**). The count comes from [Overture Maps](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/overture-maps), an open dataset of places: these are the businesses a customer finds on a map, not the entries of the official business register. Business types in the area Share of the businesses counted - Industry**9.0%** (44) - Restaurants**8.8%** (43) - Construction**8.8%** (43) - Beauty and wellness**7.0%** (34) - Home and tech**6.1%** (30) - Bars and pubs**5.3%** (26) - Sport and fitness**5.1%** (25) - Lodging**5.1%** (25) - Automotive**4.9%** (24) - Health**4.3%** (21) - Creative and media**4.1%** (20) - Other sectors**31.5%** (154) Of **489** businesses, **355** (**72.6%**) list a website and **238** (**48.7%**) have one that works. The other **117** that list a website send customers to an address that does not answer, or to a social profile, a booking site or a delivery platform instead of a website. Someone tapping the link on a map gets an error, or a page that is not the business's own. Businesses with a website Of the **117** businesses that list a website we could not open, **61** (**52.1%**) point to a domain or server that does not answer, **21** (**17.9%**) have a site whose bot protection stopped our tool, **17** (**14.5%**) list a social profile or a platform page instead of a website, **14** (**12%**) open an error page, and **4** (**3.4%**) fail to connect, on a network error or a timeout. A domain that does not answer has usually expired or lost its hosting; an error page is often the address of a site that was rebuilt or closed, left behind on the map. Among the profiles and platforms listed instead of a website, the most common is Instagram (**8**). The **21** businesses with a protected site are a separate case: the server answers with a bot check page (status **202** or **403**), so the site most likely opens for someone visiting it in a browser, but we could not audit it. That is a limit of the tool, not a broken site: counting them, the businesses with a working website would rise to at most **259**, **53%**. Why the listed website does not open #### The bot protections recognised - SiteGround10 sites | 52.6% - Cloudflare3 sites | 15.8% - DataDome1 sites | 5.3% - Not recognised5 sites | 26.3% The share of businesses with a working website, sector by sector (sectors with at least **30** businesses). Best covered: home and tech, **73.3%**. Least covered: beauty and wellness, **23.5%**. A sector at the bottom of the list does not mean worse businesses: in some sectors customers book or order through a platform, and the business lists that instead of a website. Websites by sector - Working website, above average - Working website, below average - Listed, not working - No website - Pescantina average, every sector: 48.7% Show the data | | businesses | Working website | Listed, not working | No website | | ------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | ------------------- | ---------- | | Home and tech | 30 | 73.3% | 16.7% | 10% | | Industry | 44 | 65.9% | 15.9% | 18.2% | | Construction | 43 | 65.1% | 14% | 20.9% | | Restaurants | 43 | 41.9% | 30.2% | 27.9% | | Beauty and wellness | 34 | 23.5% | 29.4% | 47.1% | ### Speed and ease of use, on a phone How long someone opening the site on a phone waits, and whether they can use it with a screen reader too. What people do while they wait, according to research - 53% of people on a phone leave a page that takes longer than **3** seconds to load. - +103% more visitors leave straight away with a delay of just **2** seconds. - 7% fewer enquiries and sales for every extra **100** milliseconds of waiting. Sources: Google, Akamai. Research on user behavior, not measurements from this scan. On the main page of **219** sites, the median scores are **69** out of **100** for performance (mean **68.1**), **89** for accessibility (mean **86.2**), **96** for best practices (mean **88.5**), and **92** for SEO (mean **91.8**). Performance sits in the middle band (**50** to **89**): the page works, but on a phone with a slow mobile connection the wait is noticeable. Half the sites take more than **6.8** seconds to show their main content, the largest photo or block of text: above **4** seconds, the point where Google calls it poor. Accessibility needs work: many sites still have low contrast text, buttons without a name, or form fields a screen reader cannot read. Lighthouse scores of the home page ### Being found on Google The basics that help Google find every page, show the right one, and read the business's details. Of **231** working sites, **22.5%** have no valid sitemap, **60.6%** show no Search Console verification we can see, **34.2%** have no meta description on the home page, and **28.6%** do not state a canonical URL for the home page. A sitemap is the list of pages a site hands to Google. Search Console is the free tool where the owner sees which searches the site appears for and whether Google finds errors. The meta description is the text under the title in search results: without one, Google picks its own. A canonical URL tells Google which version of a page to show when several copies exist. What working sites are missing **10** of **238** businesses with a working website (**4.2%**) have complete basic structured data: a LocalBusiness block and a WebSite block, both complete. Structured data is a block hidden in the page that tells Google the business's name, address, phone and opening hours without leaving it to guess. For the business's own details one block matters most, LocalBusiness: it tells Google the name, address, phone and opening hours without leaving it to guess. Of the **238** businesses with a working website, **15.1%** have one and only **5.9%** have it complete; those that have one most often leave out opening hours (**47.2%**). Businesses with complete structured data (JSON-LD) - Yes, complete - No, incomplete or missing Show the data | | Pescantina | | ------------------------- | ---------- | | Yes, complete | 4.2% | | No, incomplete or missing | 95.8% | | Property | Block | Missing | Businesses | | ------------- | ------------- | ------- | ---------- | | Opening hours | LocalBusiness | 47.2% | 17 of 36 | | Telephone | LocalBusiness | 25% | 9 of 36 | | Address | LocalBusiness | 19.4% | 7 of 36 | | URL | LocalBusiness | 13.9% | 5 of 36 | | Name | WebSite | 1.7% | 2 of 117 | ### Being read by AI assistants More and more people ask an AI assistant instead of searching Google. For general questions, such as a good restaurant downtown or a hairdresser open on Monday, assistants rely mostly on the ratings and the number of reviews a business has on Google and on review sites. The website becomes decisive for specific questions (the menu, prices, a particular service, holiday opening hours) and to confirm the business exists and is the right one: that is why the assistant has to be able to read it. **97%** of sites show their text without needing to run JavaScript, and **85.3%** let AI assistants' crawlers in. Across **231** working sites the AI score median is **79.6** out of **100** (mean **71.4**): half the sites score at least **79.6**, and the middle half sits between **59.3** and **85**. The score says how well an assistant such as **ChatGPT**, **Claude** or **Gemini** can read the site and tell what the business is: whether the text shows without running code, whether the site lets their crawlers in, whether there is structured data. The check with the lowest result is "llms.txt file": only **26%** of sites pass it. Median AI score The score weighs ten checks: [here is which ones, and how much each counts](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/ai-score). - 79.6/100 Pescantina ### Trust: HTTPS and blocklisted servers Trust plays out on two fronts. The first is visible: **11.3%** of sites do not use HTTPS, and the browser writes "Not secure" next to the address, right where a customer is about to leave their name and phone number in a form. The second is invisible, and it is about email. A server flagged for spam does the website no harm, which opens and shows up in search results as before; but email sent from that server can land in customers' spam folders and never be read. We checked the server of every working site against three spam blocklists (Spamhaus, Barracuda and SpamCop). Of **228** sites with an answer, **1** (**0.4%**) sit on a blocklisted server: **1** servers out of **192**. A spam blocklist lists the addresses spam was sent from. It does the website no harm: the site opens and shows up on Google as before. The risk is email: if the business sends it from that server, confirmations, quotes and replies to customers can land in the spam folder and never be read. The server is often shared with many other sites, and the flag comes from one of them. Sites on spam blocklisted servers Pescantina - Blocklisted0.4% - Not blocklisted98.3% - No answer1.3% 1 blocklisted servers out of 192 checked // Your site ### Try it on your site The free audit runs the same checks as this report on your site: it reads the pages, measures the home page with Lighthouse, computes the AI score and tells you how it compares with the sites of your city. No sign up, up to **5** sites an hour. - SEO - Speed - Core Web Vitals - AI score - Compared with your city [Run the free SEO audit](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit) Source: NFW Web Studio scan of **489** businesses, data updated on October **1**, **2026**. // The technical detail ## The same measurements, by their technical names For developers: how the **231** working sites divide, not just their average. Here are the Core Web Vitals against Google's thresholds, JavaScript, image and font weight, file formats, technologies, what the structured data is made of, and the AI score's individual checks. Performance, across **219** sites: half score below **69**, one in four below **59**, one in ten above **89**. Median accessibility **89**, SEO **92**, AI score **79.6**. Each bar runs from the 10th to the 90th percentile; the thick part is the middle half of the sites, from the 25th to the 75th, and the mark is the median. A long bar means sites that differ a lot; a short one, sites that are alike. Lighthouse and AI scores: the spread Show the mean - Pescantina Show the data | | | 10th percentile | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | Mean | | -------------- | ---------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | --------------- | ---- | | Performance | Pescantina | 48 | 59 | 69 | 78 | 89 | 68 | | Accessibility | Pescantina | 73 | 81 | 89 | 93 | 95 | 86 | | Best practices | Pescantina | 73 | 77 | 96 | 100 | 100 | 88 | | SEO | Pescantina | 83 | 92 | 92 | 100 | 100 | 92 | | AI score | Pescantina | 39.6 | 59.3 | 79.6 | 85 | 99.6 | 71.4 | Medians across **219** sites: first content (FCP) **2.4 s**, main content (LCP) **6.8 s**, page on screen (Speed Index) **4.4 s**, blocking time (TBT) **92 ms**, and server response (TTFB) **67 ms**. Against Google's thresholds, the median is good for TBT and TTFB, in need of improvement for FCP and Speed Index, and poor for LCP. These are lab measurements: Lighthouse simulates a mid-range phone on a slow mobile connection, so the times are longer than on an office computer. Interactivity (INP) cannot be measured in the lab. Home page load times: Core Web Vitals and Lighthouse Show the mean - Pescantina - Google's "good" threshold Show the data | | | 10th percentile | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | Mean | | ----------------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | | First content on screen (FCP) | Pescantina | 1.4 s | 1.9 s | 2.4 s | 3.1 s | 4.2 s | 2.8 s | | Main content on screen (LCP) | Pescantina | 2.8 s | 4.4 s | 6.8 s | 11.4 s | 18.9 s | 9.4 s | | Page on screen (Speed Index) | Pescantina | 2.1 s | 3.0 s | 4.4 s | 6.3 s | 10.0 s | 5.4 s | | Blocking time (TBT) | Pescantina | 0 ms | 7 ms | 92 ms | 243 ms | 660 ms | 214 ms | | Server response (TTFB) | Pescantina | 13 ms | 30 ms | 67 ms | 371 ms | 1.2 s | 433 ms | JavaScript downloaded by the home page: median **522 kB**, one site in ten above **1.5 MB**. Layout shift (CLS): 75th percentile **0.01**, 90th percentile **0.15**. JavaScript has to be downloaded and run by the phone before the page responds to taps: the heavier it is, the harder the phone works. Three sites in four stay within **0.10**, Google's good threshold: content does not jump around while the page loads, but one site in ten goes above **0.15**. JavaScript weight and layout stability Show the mean - Pescantina Show the data | | | 10th percentile | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | Mean | | --------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | | JavaScript downloaded | Pescantina | 116 kB | 262 kB | 522 kB | 955 kB | 1.5 MB | 703 kB | - Pescantina - Google's "good" threshold Show the data | | | 10th percentile | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | Mean | | ------------------ | ---------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | --------------- | ---- | | Layout shift (CLS) | Pescantina | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.05 | Median weight per file: images **23 kB**, fonts **31 kB**, preview image (og:image) **121 kB**. One image in ten is above **308 kB**. A photo of a few hundred kB makes sense full screen, not as a thumbnail: the heaviest files are what slow a page down on a phone. The scale is logarithmic: each tick is ten times the one before. File weight, by kind Show the mean - Pescantina Show the data | | | 10th percentile | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | 90th percentile | Mean | | ------------------------ | ---------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | --------------- | ------- | | Images | Pescantina | 547 B | 4 kB | 23 kB | 107 kB | 308 kB | 140 kB | | Fonts | Pescantina | 8 kB | 16 kB | 31 kB | 50 kB | 79 kB | 49 kB | | Favicons | Pescantina | 943 B | 1 kB | 4 kB | 11 kB | 17 kB | 12 kB | | Preview image (og:image) | Pescantina | 13 kB | 45 kB | 121 kB | 279 kB | 701 kB | 264 kB | | Videos | Pescantina | 53 kB | 2.2 MB | 4.8 MB | 13.1 MB | 25.0 MB | 17.3 MB | | Audio | Pescantina | 49 kB | 94 kB | 168 kB | 765 kB | 1.1 MB | 516 kB | Of the **7,477** images found, **20.8%** use a modern format (WebP or AVIF), **39.4%** JPG and **22.5%** PNG. Of the fonts, **76.4%** are WOFF2. At the same quality, WebP and AVIF are usually much lighter than JPG and PNG: the same photo reaches the phone sooner and uses less data. File formats Images - JPG - PNG - WEBP - SVG - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | JPG | 39.4% | | PNG | 22.5% | | WEBP | 17.9% | | SVG | 11.4% | | Other | 8.7% | Fonts - WOFF2 - WOFF - TTF - L - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | WOFF2 | 76.4% | | WOFF | 7% | | TTF | 5% | | L | 4.7% | | Other | 6.9% | Favicons - PNG - ICO - JPG - SVG - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | PNG | 65.1% | | ICO | 14.8% | | JPG | 12.3% | | SVG | 4.1% | | Other | 3.6% | Preview image (og:image) - JPG - PNG - WEBP - GIF - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | JPG | 58.4% | | PNG | 29.2% | | WEBP | 10.5% | | GIF | 1% | | Other | 1% | Videos - MP4 - 4 - V - WEBM - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | MP4 | 82.6% | | 4 | 8.7% | | V | 4.3% | | WEBM | 4.3% | | Other | 0% | Audio - MP3 - WAV - Other Show the data | | Pescantina | | ----- | ---------- | | MP3 | 66.7% | | WAV | 33.3% | | Other | 0% | Across **228** working sites we recognized **315** different technologies. The most common: jQuery (**69.7%**), PHP (**50.2%**), and Google Font API (**46.3%**). The most used CMS is WordPress, on **42%** of sites. Technologies are recognized with Wappalyzer on the main page only, after its JavaScript has run: a technology used only on inner pages can be missed. The filter above shows one category at a time. Most used technologies AllJavaScript librariesFont scriptsProgramming languagesWeb serversAnalyticsPerformanceWordPress pluginsCookie complianceSEOJavaScript frameworks 1. 01 jQueryJavaScript libraries 69.7% 1. 02 Open Graph 59.3% 1. 03 PHPProgramming languages 50.2% 1. 04 HTTP/3 46.8% 1. 05 Google Font APIFont scripts 46.3% 1. 06 RSS 43.3% 1. 07 MySQLDatabases 42.4% 1. 08 jQuery MigrateJavaScript libraries 42.4% 1. 09 WordPressBlogs 42% 1. 10 Font AwesomeFont scripts 39.8% 1. 11 Priority HintsPerformance 39.4% 1. 12 Google Tag ManagerTag managers 37.2% Show the data | | Pescantina | | --------------------------------- | ---------- | | jQuery | 69.7% | | Open Graph | 59.3% | | PHP | 50.2% | | HTTP/3 | 46.8% | | Google Font API | 46.3% | | RSS | 43.3% | | MySQL | 42.4% | | jQuery Migrate | 42.4% | | WordPress | 42% | | Font Awesome | 39.8% | | Priority Hints | 39.4% | | Google Tag Manager | 37.2% | | Google Analytics | 34.6% | | core-js | 33.8% | | jQuery UI | 26.8% | | Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | 25.1% | | Nginx | 22.5% | | Bootstrap | 21.2% | | Yoast SEO | 21.2% | | Cloudflare | 18.6% | | Aruba.it | 18.2% | | Swiper | 18.2% | | iubenda | 18.2% | | GSAP | 17.3% | | Apache HTTP Server | 16% | | Elementor | 15.2% | | Masonry | 14.3% | | Contact Form 7 | 13.4% | | Isotope | 12.6% | | Cart Functionality | 10.8% | | PWA | 10.4% | | Lodash | 10% | | reCAPTCHA | 9.5% | | Facebook Pixel | 9.1% | | Modernizr | 8.7% | | Plesk | 8.2% | | Animate.css | 7.8% | | Site Kit | 7.8% | | React | 7.4% | | WooCommerce | 7.4% | | lit-html | 7.4% | | LiteSpeed | 6.9% | | Slider Revolution | 6.9% | | lit-element | 6.9% | | wpBakery | 6.9% | | OWL Carousel | 6.5% | | Cookie Control | 6.1% | | Cookiebot | 6.1% | | FancyBox | 6.1% | | Hello Elementor | 5.6% | | cdnjs | 5.6% | | Google Maps | 5.2% | | jsDelivr | 5.2% | | Astra | 4.8% | | Cybot | 4.8% | | Microsoft ASP.NET | 4.8% | | Complianz | 4.3% | | RankMath SEO | 4.3% | | WPML | 4.3% | | All in One SEO Pack | 3.9% | | Google Ads | 3.9% | | PayPal | 3.9% | | Shopify | 3.9% | | WhatsApp Business Chat | 3.9% | | IIS | 3.5% | | LazySizes | 3.5% | | MediaElement.js | 3.5% | | Select2 | 3.5% | | Sentry | 3.5% | | Skrollr | 3.5% | | Windows Server | 3.5% | | prettyPhoto | 3.5% | | Apple Pay | 3% | | Flickity | 3% | | Vimeo | 3% | | anime.js | 3% | | AOS | 2.6% | | Adobe Fonts | 2.6% | | Elementor Header & Footer Builder | 2.6% | | Facebook Login | 2.6% | | Google Ads Conversion Tracking | 2.6% | | Leaflet | 2.6% | | Lenis | 2.6% | | Livefyre | 2.6% | | Matomo Analytics | 2.6% | | Moment.js | 2.6% | | Popper | 2.6% | | RequireJS | 2.6% | | Tailwind CSS | 2.6% | | YouTube | 2.6% | | particles.js | 2.6% | | AdRoll | 2.2% | | American Express | 2.2% | | Divi | 2.2% | | Google AdSense | 2.2% | | Google Call Conversion Tracking | 2.2% | | Google Pay | 2.2% | | Gutenberg | 2.2% | | Hostinger | 2.2% | | Java | 2.2% | Of the **238** businesses with a working website, **57.6%** have at least one JSON-LD block, but only **4.2%** have complete basic data. The most common types on the sites are WebSite (**48.1%**), Organization (**39%**), and WebPage (**38.1%**). WebSite, WebPage and BreadcrumbList describe the site and its pages, and an SEO plugin often adds them on its own. To tell Google and AI assistants who the business is, where it is and when it is open, it takes a complete LocalBusiness block. Basic structured data (JSON-LD) ### What we count as complete A business has complete basic structured data when the pages of its site carry both of these JSON-LD blocks: - `LocalBusiness` or one of its subtypes (Restaurant, Dentist, Store, LegalService...), with name, a structured address (PostalAddress, not free text), telephone, URL and opening hours. - `WebSite` with the site's name and URL. Each block can appear on any of the analyzed pages. A block missing even one of these counts as incomplete. Shares are of the businesses with a working website. 53.4% 42.4% - Complete **4.2%** - Some JSON-LD, basics incomplete **53.4%** - No JSON-LD **42.4%** `LocalBusiness`Complete **5.9%** - Complete **5.9%** - Incomplete **9.2%** - Missing **84.9%** Missing from LocalBusiness - Opening hours**47.2%** - Telephone**25%** - Address**19.4%** - URL**13.9%** - Name**0%** `WebSite`Complete **48.3%** - Complete **48.3%** - Incomplete **0.8%** - Missing **50.8%** Missing from WebSite - Name**1.7%** - URL**0%** Across **231** working sites, the check with the highest result is "Content visible without JavaScript" (**97**), the one with the lowest "llms.txt file" (**26**). The robots.txt lets AI crawlers in on **85.3%** of sites. Each check has a weight, written under its name: a site's score is the weighted average of the checks that could be verified. A check the scan could not verify does not count as failed, and the site is judged on the others. The AI score's checks - 97% Content visible without JavaScript weight 20 - 85.3% robots.txt open to AI crawlers weight 15 - 54.5% Structured data on the home page weight 15 - 26% llms.txt file weight 15 - 77.5% Sitemap weight 10 - 95.2% Home page title weight 5 - 91.8% Lighthouse SEO score weight 5 - 88.7% HTTPS weight 5 - 71.4% Home page canonical weight 5 - 65.8% Home page meta description weight 5 // This scan ## The Pescantina scan, at a glance - Period On October **1**, **2026** - Kind of scan Quick: home page and first **4** sitemap pages; Lighthouse and technologies on the home page only - Area City of Pescantina - Businesses counted **489** - Working sites analyzed **231** - National comparison Not yet: it takes at least two cities in Italy scanned on the same scanner version - Data updated October **1**, **2026** - Overture Maps data September **18**, **2026** - Scanner version [v1.1.0](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/method/changelog#v1.1.0) [How we measure: the full method](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/method) // After the report ## If your website is in these numbers We are NFW Web Studio, a web studio based in Verona, working with small businesses in Pescantina and across Italy and Europe. If your site is one of the slow ones on a phone, has no sitemap, or does not describe the business in a way Google can read, that can be fixed: a landing page starts from **€520** and a full website from **€1,160**, VAT included. [Web design services for small businesses](https://www.nfw.run/website-design) ### [Website redesign services](https://www.nfw.run/website-redesign) [We rebuild your site from what you already have, and fix what this report measures: speed on a phone, sitemap, business details for Google and AI assistants. From **€320** for a landing page.](https://www.nfw.run/website-redesign) [Learn more](https://www.nfw.run/website-redesign) ### [SEO services for small businesses](https://www.nfw.run/seo-services) [Search Console, sitemap, canonical URLs and a LocalBusiness block: the items in this report that decide whether Google finds you. From **€320** one time, or **€550** a month for ongoing SEO.](https://www.nfw.run/seo-services) [Learn more](https://www.nfw.run/seo-services) ### [Case: Ricerca Perdite 1972](https://www.nfw.run/case-studies/ricerca-perdite-1972) [It started as a landing page and grew into a full website with a page for every town: from 6 to 40 Google clicks in 42 days, and the first call from the Business Profile in month three.](https://www.nfw.run/case-studies/ricerca-perdite-1972) [Read the case](https://www.nfw.run/case-studies/ricerca-perdite-1972) [How much does a website cost: all prices](https://www.nfw.run/pricing) // frequently asked questions ## The answers, to your questions. ### How many Pescantina businesses have a website? We counted **489** businesses in Pescantina. **355** of them (**72.6%**) list a website, but only **238** (**48.7%**) have one that works: the other addresses do not answer, or lead to a social profile or a booking site. The scan ran on October **1**, **2026**. ### Which sectors in Pescantina are most often without a website? Among the sectors with at least **30** businesses, the fewest working websites are in beauty and wellness (**23.5%**), restaurants (**41.9%**), and construction (**65.1%**); the most are in home and tech (**73.3%**), industry (**65.9%**), and construction (**65.1%**). The shares are the sector's businesses with a website that opens. ### Is my business among the ones you scanned? Can I see its result? If it is based in Pescantina and appears on [Overture Maps](https://www.nfw.run/state-of-the-web/overture-maps), probably yes. We do not publish results for single businesses or single sites, here or in the open data. If you want to see yours, book the free **30** minute call: we show you how it came out of the scan, meaning speed, SEO, AI readability and technologies, and what we would fix first. Or run the [free SEO audit](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit) on your site right away: the same checks as this report, compared with the sites of your city. ### What should I fix first on my website? The things this report finds missing most often are also the cheapest to fix: connecting Search Console, writing a meta description for the home page, having a valid sitemap, adding a complete LocalBusiness block with opening hours, converting images to WebP or AVIF, and adding a preview image for shares. For general searches, ratings and reviews matter most: keeping the Google listing up to date is worth as much as the website. The [free SEO audit](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit) shows you in a few minutes which of these your site is missing; on the free call we go through them together. ### How do I cite this report? The figures are free to use, commercial use included, as long as you cite the source (CC BY **4.0** license). Cite NFW Web Studio, the page title and its link, for example: NFW Web Studio, "Pescantina businesses: state of the web, October **2026**", https\://www\.nfw\.run/state-of-the-web/pescantina-city-october-2026-v1-1-0. The aggregate figures are also available as JSON at https\://dashboard.nfw\.run/v1/scans/052d63db-f473-4cd7-bcdc-2fbce6126631. If you need a figure that is not here, write to us. ### What are your prices and delivery times? A landing page starts from **€520** and a full website from **€1,160**, VAT included. These are starting prices: after a call, you get a written quote with a single figure within **24** hours. A landing page takes under **7** days, a full website starts from **7** days. With the express option, timelines are halved and guaranteed: online within **48** hours for a landing page and **96** hours for a full website. ### Can we meet in person? Do you work outside Pescantina? Yes to both. We are based in Verona, and when it makes sense we come and see the shop, workshop or venue: understanding the space helps us describe it on the site. We also work remotely with businesses across Italy and Europe, with the same method and timelines: only the way we meet changes, a video call instead of a coffee. ### Can I build a free website myself? You can, and to get started it may be enough. Before you choose, check the things this report measures on every site: how long it takes to open on a phone, whether it has a sitemap, whether it describes the business in a way Google and AI assistants can read. Some free builders cover them, some do not, and some do not let you change them. To check them you can use the [free SEO audit](https://www.nfw.run/seo-audit); if you like, we can look at what you built together on the free call. Didn't find what you were looking for? [Contact us](https://www.nfw.run/contact-us) // ready when you are ## Your website, online within a week. Write to us today: we reply within **24** hours with the next steps. - Meet in person or by video call - Written quote within **24** hours - Published prices, VAT included - Online within a week - The site stays yours Contact for Pescantina Enrico: Software Engineer Available for in-person meetings in San Giovanni Lupatoto and Verona, and by video call across Italy and Europe. [Write to us](mailto:info@nfw.run) [Book a call](https://calendly.com/nfw-info/30min)