Why we built this
I run WebnWell, a small studio that builds websites and runs advertising for foundation, basement and crawl-space companies. That focus is how this report came to exist. It started as a prospecting list: a few hundred companies we wanted to work with. By summer it had become every foundation-repair and waterproofing company we could find, 6,935 of them, across every state and province, and each time we audited a site we learned something about the trade as a whole.
It felt wrong to keep that inside our office. So here is the data, published for the people it describes. What I want a contractor to take from it is simple: almost nothing in these pages is hard to fix. A certificate, a tappable number, a form, a few lines of code, a habit of asking for reviews. The companies doing excellent work, and this trade is full of them, deserve websites that keep up with that work. Staying ahead online is not difficult. Most of it is easy, once you can see it.
Six numbers the trade should know about itself
Bases: 6,935 companies (reviews, ads, website presence); 3,096 reachable audited sites (site findings). WAF-blocked sites excluded from findings.
Paying for traffic, losing it at the door
64% of companies buy attention — 60% on Meta, 14% on Google. Then 22% of live sites offer no way to make contact from the homepage, and 24% load slowly enough to lose visitors before it appears.
Advertising in this trade is mainstream: nearly two in three companies run it. What the numbers show is where the spend leaks. A paid click that lands on a page with no form, no email link and a slow load is a click the competitor down the results page gets to keep. The companies advertising most heavily are also the ones with the most to lose from a leaking landing page.
My take: You are already paying for attention. Fixing the page it lands on is the cheapest advertising decision you will make this year.
One in eleven links leads nowhere
9% of the websites listed on contractors' Google Business Profiles do not load. Not slow, not ugly — gone: expired domains, lapsed hosting, redirects to nothing.
A Google listing is where most homeowners first meet a foundation company, and the website link is the second thing they touch. When that link fails, the homeowner does not retry; they tap the next listing. For 314 of the companies we audited, that is happening every day — and 64% of the trade is paying for advertising that, for the dead-site companies, points at the same wall.
The failure is invisible from inside the business. Nobody's own phone shows the outage; the listing looks fine; the reviews keep coming. Only the click-through disappears.
Highest dead-site rates among states/provinces with 40+ audited sites.
My take: Open your own listing on your own phone this week and tap the link. It takes a minute, and nobody else will do it for you.
The AI-invisible trade
63% of live sites carry no structured data (schema markup). Search engines and AI assistants cannot reliably read the business name, phone, hours or service area from them.
Homeowners increasingly ask an assistant — "who fixes foundation cracks near me?" — instead of scrolling results. Assistants answer from what they can read with confidence, and a site without structured data gives them nothing to be confident about. Among the best-built sites in the study, 52% have it; among the weakest, 2%. It is the single largest gap between the two groups, and the cheapest to close.
My take: This is not the future; homeowners already ask their phone who to call. Give it an answer it can trust.
The phone that can't be tapped
On 18% of live sites the phone number is plain text — on a phone, you cannot tap it to call.
Foundation problems are urgent and emotional; the customer wants to talk to a human, and most of them are holding a phone when they decide. A number that has to be memorised or copied is a number that gets called less. The best-built sites get this right 96% of the time; the weakest, 23%.
My take: If a homeowner has to type your number, you have made them work to hire you. Make it one tap.
Reviews: a trade of extremes
The median company has 11 Google reviews. 35% have fewer than five; 39% have twenty or more; 8.3% have more than 150.
Reputation in this trade is not a bell curve — it is a cliff. A large group of companies has almost no public proof of its work, while a smaller group has built compounding review counts that dominate their local results. The gap tracks everything else in this study: the companies with the best-built websites average 91 reviews; those with the weakest average 18.
My take: Ask at the door, every job. The distance between five reviews and fifty is a habit, not luck.
The no-website 9%
603 companies — 8.7% of the trade — have no website at all, only a listing.
Many of them are good businesses running on referrals; some have hundreds of reviews. But a homeowner comparing three quotes sees two websites and one blank, and the blank rarely wins the comparison. The rate varies by market: Oregon 15%, Utah 14%, Georgia 13% — among the highest.
My take: Referrals built your business. A simple site is how a referral checks you out before they call.
What the best-built third does differently
Splitting the audited sites into the strongest band (score 80+, 66% of live sites) and the weakest (under 60, 10%) produces two different businesses, not two different websites:
Solid sites · 2,029 companies
- Average reviews
- 91
- Median reviews
- 24
- Run ads anywhere
- 70%
- Run Google Ads
- 21%
- Tappable phone
- 96%
- Contact form on homepage
- 89%
- Structured data
- 52%
Broken sites · 319 companies
- Average reviews
- 18
- Median reviews
- 7
- Run ads anywhere
- 55%
- Run Google Ads
- 3%
- Tappable phone
- 23%
- Contact form on homepage
- 35%
- Structured data
- 2%
The direction of cause is not something this data can prove. But the pattern is consistent: the companies that invest in the basics of their site are the same companies that ask for reviews and buy search traffic — and they are the ones homeowners find.
How each market compares
Every state and province with at least ten companies in the study. "Best-built site" is the highest-scoring reachable site in the market, ties broken by review count — named because it deserves to be.
| Market | Companies | No website | Dead sites | Run ads | Median reviews | Solid sites | Best-built site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | 496 | 6% | 7% | 67% | 16 | 69% | Structured Foundation Repairs, Euless |
| California | 393 | 11% | 7% | 66% | 4 | 55% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Fairfield, Fairfield |
| Ohio | 362 | 10% | 5% | 77% | 15 | 66% | Healthy House Systems, Ravenna |
| North Carolina | 325 | 6% | 7% | 70% | 15 | 71% | Crawlspace Medic of Raleigh, Raleigh |
| New York | 255 | 7% | 14% | 64% | 13 | 62% | STORM Basement Waterproofing LLC, Victor |
| Florida | 233 | 9% | 10% | 69% | 9 | 77% | Saul Waterproofing & Painting Inc, Miami |
| Tennessee | 211 | 9% | 11% | 69% | 7 | 83% | Crawl Logic |
| Virginia | 194 | 8% | 9% | 66% | 11 | 67% | Coastal Crawlspace Solutions Inc, Virginia Beach |
| Illinois | 185 | 8% | 11% | 68% | 15 | 78% | Helitech Waterproofing & Foundation Repair, Caseyville |
| Georgia | 165 | 13% | 14% | 70% | 17 | 70% | APS Waterproofing, Smyrna |
| Massachusetts | 165 | 8% | 12% | 70% | 11 | 57% | Drycrete Waterproofing, Walpole |
| Wisconsin | 164 | 6% | 10% | 60% | 9 | 79% | B & B Basement Repairs LLC, Fremont |
| Pennsylvania | 154 | 10% | 10% | 75% | 25 | 76% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Pittsburgh, Washington |
| South Carolina | 147 | 13% | 4% | 68% | 11 | 59% | Crawlspace Medic of Columbia, Columbia |
| Colorado | 146 | 13% | 6% | 68% | 9 | 62% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Denver, Denver |
| Connecticut | 136 | 13% | 19% | 57% | 7 | 67% | Connecticut Basement Waterproofing |
| Washington | 135 | 7% | 12% | 76% | 8 | 51% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Seattle, Sumner |
| Oklahoma | 108 | 13% | 4% | 64% | 8 | 55% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Tulsa, Broken Arrow |
| Alabama | 102 | 5% | 10% | 79% | 15 | 72% | Affordable Foundation & Home Repairs - The Crack Guys, Hartselle |
| Kentucky | 102 | 7% | 10% | 75% | 14 | 91% | Crawlspace Medic of Louisville, Louisville |
| Maryland | 96 | 5% | 7% | 66% | 27 | 58% | Budget Waterproofing, Inc., Linthicum Heights |
| Michigan | 90 | 3% | 0% | 69% | 32 | 72% | Foundation Restoration, Rockwood |
| Minnesota | 89 | 2% | 5% | 79% | 8 | 77% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Minneapolis, Inver Grove Heights |
| Utah | 85 | 14% | 5% | 66% | 6 | 57% | Niagara Waterproofing LLC |
| Arkansas | 78 | 10% | 3% | 76% | 6 | 76% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Little Rock, Little Rock |
| Iowa | 78 | 8% | 11% | 71% | 15 | 64% | Helitech Waterproofing & Foundation Repair, West Des Moines |
| New Jersey | 70 | 3% | 9% | 71% | 46 | 75% | Groundworks Foundation Repair New Jersey, South Plainfield |
| Indiana | 68 | 4% | 10% | 72% | 38 | 82% | Indiana Crawl Space Repair, Martinsville |
| Oregon | 67 | 15% | 6% | 63% | 7 | 83% | BEST Roofing & Waterproofing, Eugene |
| Missouri | 64 | 9% | 10% | 75% | 26 | 68% | Helitech Waterproofing and Foundation Repair, Springfield |
| Kansas | 62 | 5% | 10% | 71% | 23 | 79% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Wichita, Wichita |
| Louisiana | 55 | 20% | 4% | 56% | 4 | 64% | Ace House Leveling LLC |
| Arizona | 51 | 8% | 12% | 69% | 7 | 65% | American Roofing & Waterproofing LLC, Phoenix |
| Delaware | 39 | 8% | 18% | 74% | 16 | 72% | Seaside Crawl Space |
| Maine | 36 | 17% | 0% | 53% | 3 | 40% | Mainers |
| Nebraska | 36 | 8% | 6% | 69% | 32 | 67% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Omaha, Omaha |
| New Hampshire | 34 | 15% | 5% | 71% | 5 | 44% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Manchester, Hooksett |
| West Virginia | 34 | 9% | 8% | 76% | 4 | 75% | Groundworks Foundation Repair West Virginia, Scott Depot |
| Mississippi | 29 | 17% | 17% | 59% | 5 | 50% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Memphis, Southaven |
| District of Columbia | 27 | 7% | 6% | 78% | 14 | 82% | Dr. Leaks - Leak Detection & Mold Remediation Washington DC, Washington |
| South Dakota | 26 | 8% | 8% | 69% | 8 | 50% | Extreme Foundation Repair, Rapid City |
| Montana | 22 | 18% | 11% | 64% | 2 | 62% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Bozeman, Belgrade |
| Rhode Island | 18 | 17% | 0% | 61% | 8 | 71% | Drycrete Waterproofing, East Providence |
| Vermont | 18 | 22% | 17% | 50% | 3 | 50% | Postech Screw Piles Burlington, Waterbury Center |
| Hawaii | 17 | 12% | 33% | 82% | 5 | 50% | Foundation Systems Hawaii, Honolulu |
| North Dakota | 17 | 12% | 11% | 65% | 5 | 29% | Groundworks Foundation Repair Fargo, Fargo |
| Idaho | 15 | 13% | 0% | 67% | 10 | 57% | Boise Foundation Repair |
| New Mexico | 14 | 7% | 11% | 43% | 7 | 57% | Clovis Foundation Repair |
| Wyoming | 11 | 9% | 22% | 36% | 2 | 43% | Owensboro Foundation Repair |
Canada
| Province | Companies | No website | Dead sites | Run ads | Median reviews | Solid sites | Best-built site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontario | 625 | 7% | 9% | 54% | 14 | 65% | The Crack Specialists, St. Jacobs |
| Quebec | 342 | 5% | 6% | 36% | 13 | 46% | Pieux Vistech Montréal |
| British Columbia | 136 | 10% | 11% | 47% | 2 | 41% | Postech Screw Piles Okanagan, Armstrong |
| Alberta | 128 | 9% | 13% | 49% | 8 | 53% | ReImagine Builders - Custom Basement Development |
| Manitoba | 46 | 11% | 16% | 48% | 5 | 67% | Postech Screw Piles Winnipeg |
| New Brunswick | 37 | 22% | 0% | 41% | 2 | 56% | Postech Screw Piles Moncton, Moncton |
| Nova Scotia | 37 | 19% | 0% | 38% | 2 | 61% | Aquatight Basements, Halifax |
| Saskatchewan | 30 | 17% | 23% | 57% | 4 | 60% | Postech Screw Piles Prince Albert |
"Dead sites" and "Solid sites" are shares of audited sites in that market; markets with few audits show more variance. Highest share of solid sites (40+ audited): Kentucky 91%, Tennessee 83%, Wisconsin 79%.
Your state's detailed scorecard
Every company in your state, ranked, with website status and advertising activity — the same table behind this report, as a PDF.
How this was measured
- Population. 6,935 companies (5,540 US, 1,395 Canada) collected from Google Maps listings for foundation repair, basement waterproofing, crawl space repair and related searches across every US state and Canadian province, June–September 2026; deduplicated by phone number and address; charities, suppliers and unrelated businesses removed.
- Website audits. 3,539 company websites fetched between 2026-08-23 and 2026-09-05 and checked for HTTPS, mobile viewport, title and heading structure, LocalBusiness structured data, a tappable phone number, a contact form or email link on the homepage, image alt coverage, load time and page weight, robots.txt and sitemap. Each site scored out of 100; "solid" is 80+, "broken" under 60.
- Dead sites. A site that failed a plain fetch was re-tested with a full browser over a second day. Sites that served content to the browser (bot protection, 129 sites) are excluded from all findings; sites that failed both are counted as dead.
- Advertising. Google Ads presence checked by domain via the Google Ads Transparency Center; Meta presence by company name via the Meta Ad Library, 6,932 companies checked. Meta name matching is fuzzy, so its share is an upper bound.
- Reviews are Google review counts and ratings as listed at collection time.
- Named companies. The scorecards name only the best-built site in each market, as a compliment. No company is named for a weakness anywhere in this report; findings are reported as shares of the trade.
- Not measured: revenue, lead volume or conversion rates. Where the report links web presence to business outcomes it describes correlation, not cause.
Questions about the data, or a request for your state's detailed table: [email protected].
Where does your site stand?
Every company in this study can request its own scorecard — the same audit, with your findings, your local ranking and which of your competitors are advertising. Free, no obligation: webnwell.com/score. Staying ahead online is not difficult; the scorecard shows you where to start.
WebnWell builds and runs websites and advertising for foundation, basement and crawl-space companies. This report is published annually.