saas · Sep 12, 2026

loweef.io

We found more conversion tactics here than on 3% of the 1,350 multi-step SaaS funnels we have measured.

2 conversion tactics detected

3 pages walked · measured by Roentgen 1.27.0

Put this x-ray to work Brief your AI X-ray your funnel
How this was measured

Measured by Roentgen 1.27.0 on 2026-09-12. A capture is read once and its measurements freeze there, so the stamp says which ruleset read this one.

This is detection coverage, not a verdict — it counts the conversion tactics we could prove are present, out of the 11 that apply to a saas funnel. A low count means we did not detect those patterns, not that the funnel is weak.

Against all 1,781 multi-step funnels, more conversion tactics than 10% of them.

Walk 62 links on the entry page, 46 walkable. 2 matched a funnel step; we captured 3 pages in all, this one included.

The short version, in 5 parts

  1. Proven on the page

    2 conversion tactics detected, each backed by text on the page

    Compares itself against alternatives
    comparison table: ITEM · loweef · SELF-REFERRAL · TRADING DIRECT
    Answers buyer objections
    Is this safe? How is it different from self-referral?

    See all 2

  2. Not seen

    9 of 11 applicable tactics we checked for and did not see

    Trusted-by logo wall
    Customer/company logos or a "trusted by / used by" claim.
    Free trial / freemium
    A free trial, free tier, or "no credit card" entry offer.
    Pricing tiers
    Named plan tiers with per-month / per-seat pricing.

    + 6 more

    See what we looked for

  3. Flagged

    4 of 12 build checks flagged, each with a fix

    Body text size
    Smallest sampled text is 12px, below the 13px floor this check uses.
    Named controls
    3 buttons/links have no accessible name (icon-only, no aria-label).
    Oversized images
    34 images are shipped at more than 2x the width shown.

    + 1 more

    See the fixes

  4. Walked

    3 pages walked, Homepage / Lander to Signup

    Step 1
    Homepage / Lander
    Step 2
    Compare
    Step 3
    Signup

    Walk it frame by frame

  5. In their words

    The headline: The more you trade, the more you're owed.

    Promise
    Part of the trading fees you pay comes back, daily in USDT. Rates go up to 65% and depend on the exchange — 7…
    Prices shown
    $49 · $15 · $14.73

    Read every quote

Captured Homepage / Lander
Step 1 · Homepage / Lander1 / 3

What we recorded

Progress

2 scans

this funnel’s coverage score across measured re-scans

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion
Unchanged across 2 scans Same 2 conversion tactics detected since 2026-08-14.
  1. 2 tactics 2026-08-14
  2. 2 tactics 2026-09-12

The funnel, frame by frame

3 steps walked

see their whole funnel without clicking through it. scored step by step

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion
Homepage / Lander
01

Homepage / Lander

▲ strongest
2 tactics

$49 +14 more

ComparisonFAQ
Compare
02

Compare

0 tactics

$100,000 +1 more

no named tactics detected on this step

Signup
03

Signup

▼ thinnest
0 tactics

$100,000 +1 more

no named tactics detected on this step

In their own words

38 quoted

the entry page’s own title, headline, buttons and prices — quoted, never paraphrased

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion
Page title
loweef — Crypto Fee Rebate up to 65% · Daily USDT Payback
Meta description
Part of the trading fees you pay comes back, daily in USDT. Rates go up to 65% and depend on the exchange — 70% in the first 2 weeks. No deposit, no API keys. AlphaX · BingX · MEXC · OKX.
Headline
The more you trade, the more you're owed.
Section headings
Start in 3 stepsHow much of my fees can I get back?Rebate rates by exchangeloweef vs. self-referral vs. trading directFrequently asked questions1 1-minute sign-up2 Link your exchange3 Daily automatic accrual
Buttons and links
EnglishSign upAlphaX total 65% ▾Get my payback →Start with GoogleAlphaX total 65% (welcome 65%) ▾Simple (monthly volume)Detailed (margin · leverage)Casual $300KActive $5M+2 more, not shown
Prices on the page
$49$15$14.73$29.96$3.85$1,625$54$300+7 more, not shown

Sections

6 identified

structural bands identified on this funnel, cropped from its own capture

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion
Nav section of loweef.io
Nav0% down the page
Hero section of loweef.io
Hero1% down the page
Pricing section of loweef.io
Pricing28% down the page
Comparison section of loweef.io
Comparison55% down the page
FAQ section of loweef.io
FAQ66% down the page
Footer section of loweef.io
Footer77% down the page

What we found

2 tactics

conversion tactics we could prove are present, with the on-page text that evidences each

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion

objection2 of 2

Compares itself against alternatives comparison table: ITEM · loweef · SELF-REFERRAL · TRADING DIRECT
Answers buyer objections Is this safe? How is it different from self-referral?

What we didn’t find

9 of 11 applicable

applicable tactics we checked for and did not see on any step we reached

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion

What we didn’t see9 of 11 applicable

Trusted-by logo wall 1,484 of the 2,043 funnels we checked
Free trial / freemium 1,340 of the 1,673 SaaS funnels we checked
Pricing tiers 873 of the 1,673 SaaS funnels we checked
Press / "as seen in" 642 of the 2,417 funnels we checked
Demo / docs entry 575 of the 1,683 funnels we checked
Lead-capture form 437 of the 1,683 funnels we checked
Proof above the fold 381 of the 2,420 funnels we checked
Usage / adoption proof 289 of the 2,043 funnels we checked
Scarcity / urgency copy 125 of the 2,417 funnels we checked

Absence is a measurement, not a recommendation: we do not know why a tactic is missing, whether it belongs here, or whether adding it would change anything. Where a walk stopped early, a tactic living deeper would also read as not detected.

How well it’s built

12 run · 4 flagged

contrast, mobile, typography, accessibility, weight — each with what would fix it

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion

4 of 10 measured checks need work2 could not be measured — not counted either way

Body text size

type:body-text-size

Smallest sampled text is 12px, below the 13px floor this check uses.

FixKeep body copy ≥15-16px; reserve sub-13px for fine print only.

Named controls

a11y:named-controls

3 buttons/links have no accessible name (icon-only, no aria-label).

FixAdd aria-label to icon-only buttons and links.

Oversized images

weight:oversized-images

34 images are shipped at more than 2x the width shown.

“bingx.svg” is 186px wide, displayed at 25px

FixServe responsive sizes (srcset/sizes) matching the rendered width.

Tap-target size (mobile)

mobile:tap-target-size-mobile

173 of 200 interactive targets are under 44×44px on mobile.

smallest: “loweef” at 29×22px

FixGive tappable controls a ≥44×44px hit area. the touch minimum.

Worth knowing2

Line length

33 paragraphs run past ~95 characters per line.

FixCap measure at ~60-75ch for comfortable reading.

type:line-length
Label in name

4 controls have an aria-label that does not contain its visible text, so voice-control users cannot activate it by saying what they see.

FixMake the accessible name start with the visible label text.

a11y:label-in-name

Not measurable2

Text contrast (WCAG AA)

All 361 sampled text runs sit over images or gradients. effective contrast is not computable.

contrast:text-contrast-wcag-aa
Page weight

At least 0.0 MB across 20 measurable resources, but 19 cross-origin resources did not expose a size. The true weight cannot be determined from the page.

weight:page-weight

Clear4

Mobile viewport · Language declared · Image alt text · Render-blocking resources

Playbook match

1 matched

which funnel play this page runs — measured, evidence-quoted

deriveda deterministic summary generated only from measured facts. labeled, never an LLM guess

Comparison surface matches the Intent-Match pattern — measured comparison table plus comparison-intent copy

comparison table home: comparison table: ITEM · loweef · SELF-REFERRAL · TRADING DIRECTcomparison copy loweef vs. self-referral vs. trading direct

A match means this funnel's measurable surfaces fit the playbook's pattern — the quoted language is what fired the detection. A lever is one playbook mechanism observed on-page. We never claim what a brand's ads or emails do; a crawl can't see them. All funnel designs →

Two different things sit side by side here. The claim and its quoted evidence are measured on this funnel, the same way every other fact on this page is. The playbook itself is written guidance — our strategy library, not a measurement of this site — and it lives behind the links above. Nothing on this page recommends what this brand should do.

Brand kit

5 colour roles

palette by on-page usage · type rendered live

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion
full palette ordered by on-page usage %
accent#e9d8c8
bg#ffffff
surface#e9d8c8
text#191f28
See the roles applied
accent

Body copy in their text role, on a surface card.

the roles, doing their job
The quick brown fox44px
Jumps over the lazy dog32px
A subheading in their voice24px

Body copy set at their measured paragraph size. This is how their product reads to a first-time visitor. same family, same scale, same weight.

  • List item one, at body scale
  • List item two
  • List item three
Type scale, weights & families
SIZE SCALE
12pxAa
14pxAa
16pxAa
20pxAa
24pxAa
32pxAa
44pxAa
WEIGHTS
Aa400
Aa500
Aa600
Aa700
FAMILIES
Pretendard
rendered in their own type system · webfont not loaded. system fallback if uninstalled

Measured, found none

1 of 10 layers

layers we ran on this funnel that came back empty

measuredextracted directly from the live page. a fact, not an opinion

Elements — the atomic pieces — price anchors, ratings, guarantees — with their verbatim on-page text

We ran this pass on the pages we captured and found nothing to show. That is a measurement of this funnel, not a recommendation — and it is a different statement from a layer we never ran, which does not appear here at all.

Similar crawls