Prototyping.ioYC P26 landing page report.
← Back to YC P26

Your landing page’s weakest score is Trust.

How Prototyping.io ranks

  1. 1.Protolabs (Hubs)80
  2. 2.Fabworks80
  3. 3.OSH Cut78
  4. 4.SendCutSend76
  5. 5.Prototyping.io70
Fix Trust

Score over time

85807570656055SendCutSend 76 on Jun 3 (Wayback)SendCutSend 62 on Jun 22 (Wayback)SendCutSend 77 on Jul 17 (Wayback)SendCutSend 73 on Aug 4 (Wayback)SendCutSend 76 on Aug 12 (Wayback)SendCutSend 75 on Aug 28 (Wayback)SendCutSend 76 on Sep 20 (Live)Protolabs (Hubs) 79 on May 28 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 81 on Jun 13 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 81 on Jun 23 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 81 on Jul 17 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 79 on Jul 28 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 79 on Sep 15 (Wayback)Protolabs (Hubs) 80 on Sep 20 (Live)Fabworks 76 on Mar 26 (Wayback)Fabworks 76 on May 11 (Wayback)Fabworks 77 on May 22 (Wayback)Fabworks 80 on Sep 1 (Wayback)Fabworks 80 on Sep 20 (Live)OSH Cut 77 on May 31 (Wayback)OSH Cut 79 on Jun 17 (Wayback)OSH Cut 76 on Jul 8 (Wayback)OSH Cut 78 on Jul 23 (Wayback)OSH Cut 77 on Aug 1 (Wayback)OSH Cut 79 on Aug 21 (Wayback)OSH Cut 78 on Sep 20 (Live)Prototyping.io 67 on Apr 19 (Wayback)Prototyping.io 70 on Sep 20 (Live)Apr 19Sep 20
Past reportsShow past reportsHide past reports
  1. Sep 20, 202670LiveOverall +3 · Mobile web +14 · Information hierarchy −6Viewing
  2. Apr 19, 202667First tracked report — strongest Information hierarchy 82, weakest Trust 42View →

Trust

42Poor

Proof that the product is real, competent, and safe to try.

Prototyping.io
Protolabs (Hubs)
Fabworks
OSH Cut
SendCutSend
Trust read
Prototyping.io"Backed by Y Combinator" badge above the hero headline
SendCutSend"Proudly made in the USA" badge with flag alongside a real shop-floor manufacturing photo in the hero
Protolabs (Hubs)Customer logo strip (Intel, Audi, NASA, HP) captioned "Join thousands of companies using Protolabs Network"
FabworksCustomer logo wall under "Trusted by teams building real hardware." including NASA, Tesla, Amazon, and Haas
OSH Cut"TRUSTED BY" customer logo strip featuring Amazon, AMETEK, and Anduril

CTA

72Fair

Copy, size, verb, cost-feel — does the primary CTA earn the click?

Prototyping.io
Fabworksin-product action
Protolabs (Hubs)
SendCutSend

Problems

  • 'Request' feels like asking permission
  • click delivers a form, not value
  • nav says 'Request Access' — label drift

Value props

72Fair

Title, subtitle, hero — do they sell the product's true value?

Prototyping.io’s headline sellsTurn CAD designs into Sheet Metal parts - driven by AIFast, reliable parts delivered through optimized, automated manufacturing workflows at lower costs

Working

  • Concrete input-to-output transformation
  • Names mechanism: AI-driven manufacturing
  • YC badge adds instant credibility

Could improve

  • Subhead is four claims, zero numbers
  • No hero visual demonstrating product
  • "lower costs" unquantified

Information hierarchy

76Fair

Does the design help or inhibit what the page is trying to say?

Information hierarchy annotations on the desktop capture123
  1. Explore Services button — Secondary CTA sits at nearly the same size and position as the primary, splitting the click decision at the moment of action.
  2. Request Access nav button — Duplicate filled pill in the header competes at full weight with the hero's 'Request Early Access' primary.
  3. Hero headline block — Three-line headline with mid-sentence color break ('Sheet Metal') fragments the scan; the promise reads in pieces rather than one beat.

Mobile web

86Strong

The phone experience as a first-class citizen.

Mobile web annotations on the mobile capture1
  1. Hero headline wrap — Oversized type wraps into four uneven lines ('into' stranded alone), slowing comprehension of the value prop.