wikileaks.org
60/100
Ranked #21,791 of 46,880 sites
wikileaks.org
60/100 · #21,791 of 46,880
homepagerankings.com
Nonprofit / NGO Benchmarks
How you compare to 468 Nonprofit / NGO sites
Gray line = Nonprofit / NGO median
Analysis
Wikileaks scores 60 out of 100 on homepage messaging, earning a C+ grade — mixed. Across all 30,134 sites analyzed, that's close to the median of 59.
The hero text reads: "Submit documents to WikiLeaks". Decent. Action verbs give a sense of function, but could be more explicit about exactly what the product is. The language is specific enough that visitors get a concrete sense of what's offered. With a clarity score of 49, Wikileaks is above the overall median of 36.
The page has 2 CTAs, 1 of them above the fold. That's a focused set, which avoids overwhelming visitors. The primary CTA "contact us" is generic — 'Learn more' and 'Get started' don't tell visitors what happens next.
Audience targeting is unclear. Detected audience: Audience not defined on the page. ICP clarity score: 0 (below the median of 35).
The biggest opportunities for Wikileaks: Audience targeting is weak — adding a "for [specific role/company type]" pattern would sharpen the positioning immediately. First impression clarity is below median — visitors can't quickly tell what category this product falls into.
Fix These First
up to +45 ptsRanked by estimated impact on your overall score
Add a "for [specific audience]" pattern to your hero
Visitors can't tell if this product is for them — specificity wins trust
Add a pricing page
Hiding pricing creates friction — most buyers want to self-qualify before talking to sales
Close first-impression gaps
Visitors can't quickly tell who it's for and why it matters — those signals should be above the fold
Make your CTA more specific
"Get started" is generic — tie it to an outcome ("Start building" or "See your report")
First Impression
F (20/100)“A visitor would think this is a media / content / publishing for someone that offers something that publishs.”
Media / Content / Publishing
Unknown
Something that publishs
None detected
Neutral
Gaps:
- -Business category is implied but not clearly stated.
- -No clear target audience defined. Could be for anyone, which means it resonates with no one.
- -Product description is vague. Visitors get a rough idea but no clear picture.
- -No discernible value proposition. The page does not explain why someone should care.
Suggested Rewrites
Better copy based on your product signals — click to copy
Current
contact us
Tying your CTA to a specific outcome increases click-through
A/B Test Ideas
Specific experiments to run, ranked by expected impact
Test adding "free" or "no card required" to your primary CTA
Risk-reducing modifiers typically lift click-through 10-15%
Test a "free" modifier on your CTA: "contact us" vs "contact us — Free"
"Free" is the highest-converting modifier across 27K+ homepages analyzed
Test adding "for Audience not defined on the page" to your hero or subheadline
Naming your audience explicitly increases relevance. Visitors self-qualify faster when they see themselves.
Test adding social proof above the fold (customer count, logos, or testimonial)
No social proof detected. Even one trust signal ("Join 500+ teams") can lift conversions significantly.
Messaging Clarity
CTA Analysis
C (62/100)Total CTAs
2
Above Fold
1
Best CTA
Tier 3
What Do You Sell?
C- (49/100)In 5 words:
Submit documents
Hero
specificSubmit documents to WikiLeaks
Meta Description
absentICP Clarity
F (0/100)Detected audience
absentAudience not defined on the page
Pricing Page
F (0/100)No pricing page detected.
How You Compare
vs. other Nonprofit / NGO sites in the index
| Dimension | wikileaks.org | marathondatac… | clubexpress.c… | trustandwill.… | webcurate.co |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 60 | 80-20 | 78-18 | 78-18 | 78-18 |
| Clarity | 49 | 100-51 | 72-23 | 87-38 | 72-23 |
| CTA | 62 | 80-18 | 70-8 | 60 | 79-17 |
| ICP | 0 | 15-15 | 58-58 | 53-53 | 40-40 |
| 1st Impr. | 20 | 52-32 | 48-28 | 28-8 | 20 |
| Pricing | 0 | 100-100 | 95-95 | 95-95 | 70-70 |
What We Analyzed
Title
WikiLeaks
Word count
1,273
Hero text
Submit documents to WikiLeaks
More in Nonprofit / NGO
View Nonprofit / NGO benchmarks →Track Your Progress
Last scanned 63 days ago. Time to check if your homepage has improved.
wikileaks.org scored 60/100.
We fix exactly this. Messaging, CTAs, positioning. Ready-to-ship, not a slide deck.
Work with us