A finance professional's website, rebuilt and measured

A good finance leader spends a career making numbers legible — turning a mess of line items into a story a board can act on. So there’s a particular irony when that same person’s website does the opposite: buries a strong track record under a slow, dated template that makes the work look smaller than it is.

That was the starting point here. Nicole Ortiz is a Houston finance professional — controllership, FP&A, the kind of operational rigor that keeps companies solvent — whose personal site, built on Wix, undersold every bit of it. We rebuilt it. Here’s the before, the after, and every number we could measure.

What the old site was working against

The design was the first tell — a stock Wix template with the words “PROCESS DEVELOPMENT” and “FORECASTING” set vertically down a blue box, one letter per line. It reads as unfinished, and it’s the kind of thing a template does to you rather than for you.

But the real weight was underneath. We measured the homepage in a browser, the same way anyone can in their own dev tools:

• 132 network requests to load one page.
• 73 separate scripts — the Wix runtime, tag managers, gallery servers, and a long tail of builder machinery the page didn’t need.
• 611 DOM elements for what is, at heart, a few paragraphs and a photo.

None of that is unusual for Wix. It’s the tax of a drag-and-drop builder: the platform ships its whole engine to every visitor’s browser, whether the page uses it or not. On top of it sat two smaller, quieter problems — a page title that led with the generic word “Finance,” and a meta description running 482 characters, roughly three times what Google will show before it cuts you off mid-sentence in search results.

What the rebuild changed

Same person, same story, same credentials. What changed is everything around them.

Measured on the homepage	Before (Wix)	After
Network requests	132	30
Scripts loaded	73	37
DOM elements	611	379
Page load (same test)	2.1s	1.7s
Meta description	482 chars	142 chars
Page title	Finance | Nicole Ortiz	Nicole Ortiz — Finance Professional

Three things worth pulling out of that table:

The bloat is gone. Cutting 132 requests to 30 isn’t a tuning trick — it’s what happens when a page stops shipping a website builder to every visitor and ships only what the page actually is. Fewer requests is fewer things that can be slow, fail, or block the render.

It’s faster on worse hardware. The rebuilt site loaded faster in our test even though we measured it on a bare, unoptimized staging server — no CDN, not even HTTPS yet. Production will run on proper infrastructure and widen that gap further. Lighter simply wins.

The details that feed search got fixed. A title that leads with the person’s name, a meta description trimmed to a length Google will actually display in full — small on their own, but they’re the copy a search result is built from.

The part a table can’t show

The old homepage asked visitors to read three paragraphs of résumé prose and then work out for themselves what to do next. There was no next step to take.

The new one opens with the subject matter itself: a dark, data-forward layout over a faint financial grid, the name set in a serif display face — and where the old blue box stacked “FORECASTING” one letter per line, a rotating Core Competencies card now charts each discipline in turn. The same competencies, either way. One reads as a template artifact; the other reads like the work.

Then it does the thing the old page never did: it asks. A single “Let’s Connect” button sits exactly where attention lands. That’s the difference between a page that describes someone and a page that gets them contacted.

How we measured this (and what we didn’t)

Every number above came from loading each site in a browser and reading the same built-in performance and DOM tools any developer has — no proprietary benchmark, nothing you can’t reproduce. These are desktop-layout figures on both sides: Wix serves a separate mobile build by device detection, so its desktop page against the rebuild’s desktop page is the honest like-for-like. The load times are single-session measurements and will vary run to run; the structural counts (requests, scripts, DOM elements) are stable and are the ones we’d stand behind. The rebuilt site was still on staging when we measured, so treat its speed numbers as a floor, not a ceiling.

We don’t publish invented statistics. When we don’t have a clean number, we say so rather than dress one up — which is the same reason the site you hire us to build won’t make claims it can’t back.

The point

This wasn’t a redesign in the decorative sense. The content barely moved. What changed is that the website stopped fighting the person it represents — it loads faster, reads cleaner in search, and finally asks for the conversation.

Concept to deployed site: about four to six hours. Not an all-nighter, not a war story — just what a rebuild costs when the taste is human and the labor isn’t. That’s the part most people get wrong about the website they’ve been putting off: they price it in weeks of disruption, and it’s an afternoon.

That’s the whole job: take something that’s quietly costing you, and make it work. If your own site feels like it’s undermining the work behind it, run the free audit — we’ll score it on speed, design, SEO, and mobile, show you exactly what’s dragging, and give you a fixed price to fix it. It takes about a minute, and the report is yours either way.