Website profiles · Technology insights · Alternatives

labelstud.io Paid content

Categories: Artificial Intelligence

Multi-modal data labeling and annotation platform for agent traces, LLM evals, RLHF, computer vision, document AI, NLP, audio transcription, and more.

Visit website

Updated: 2026-09-24 00:07 Language: English (default) Access: Normal

Profile views 3 Outbound visits 0
Label Studio Full homepage screenshot
Editorial Review

Website Review

What is Label Studio?

Label Studio is an open-source platform for labeling data and evaluating AI systems. It provides a single environment for preparing training data, reviewing model outputs, and running human-in-the-loop workflows across text, images, audio, documents, video, and sensor data.

Its main uses fall into two broad groups:

  • Data labeling and annotation — creating ground truth for machine learning. Supported tasks include image classification, object detection, tracking, and semantic segmentation; named entity recognition, question answering, and sentiment analysis; audio transcription with waveform or spectrogram views, speaker diarization, and emotion recognition; plus classification for robots, sensors, and IoT devices.
  • AI evaluation — assessing models and agents after or during deployment. This includes reviewing agentic traces by connecting observability tools, collecting human preferences and rankings for RLHF and fine-tuning, building custom benchmarks and rubrics with side-by-side comparison, and grading retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) answers against source documents.

Who it is for. Machine learning engineers, data scientists, annotation teams, and AI product teams that need one tool spanning multiple data modalities rather than separate point solutions for text, vision, and audio.

How it is deployed. It can be installed as a Python package, via Homebrew, from source, or with Docker, and then run locally. The project is developed by HumanSignal; a hosted version is available for teams that prefer not to self-manage. See HumanSignal for version and pricing comparisons.

A practical next step. If your work involves more than one data type — for example, labeling images while also reviewing chatbot responses — start by installing the open-source version locally and building one small project end to end. That will show you quickly whether its interface and workflow fit your team before you consider a managed option.

How do I install and run Label Studio locally or with Docker?

You can run Label Studio locally in two common ways: as a Python package or with Docker. Both give you the same web interface at http://localhost:8080/, so pick based on how your machine is set up and whether you want to manage Python dependencies yourself.

Python package (pip)

Use this if you already work in Python and want the simplest path to a local instance.

pip install -U label-studio
label-studio

Run the install inside a virtual environment to keep dependencies isolated. After launching, open http://localhost:8080/ in your browser.

Homebrew (macOS)

If you use Homebrew on a Mac, you can install and launch with:

brew install humansignal/tap/label-studio
label-studio

Docker

Use Docker if you want an isolated container without touching your system Python, or if you plan to deploy the same setup elsewhere.

docker run -it -p 8080:8080 -v `pwd`/mydata:/label-studio/data heartexlabs/label-studio:latest

The -v flag mounts a local mydata folder into the container so your projects and annotations persist between restarts. Then visit http://localhost:8080/.

From source

If you want to modify the code or contribute, clone the repository and run it with Poetry:

git clone https://github.com/HumanSignal/label-studio.git
cd label-studio
pip install poetry
poetry install
poetry run python label_studio/manage.py migrate
poetry run python label_studio/manage.py collectstatic
poetry run python label_studio/manage.py runserver

Choosing between them

  • pip or Homebrew: fastest for individual use, easy to upgrade with the same package manager.
  • Docker: best when you want reproducibility, a clean host, or a setup you can later move to a server.
  • Source: only worth it if you need to change the code itself.

One practical note: the Docker volume mount matters. Without it, stopping or removing the container can take your labeled data with it. If you are just evaluating the tool, pip is the least friction; if you are setting up something a team will use, Docker with a mounted data directory is the safer default.

For version details and the current download options, see Label Studio.

Can I use Label Studio for LLM evaluation and RLHF workflows?

Yes. Label Studio is built to cover both LLM evaluation and RLHF-style human feedback, not just classic annotation. Its own page groups these under "LLM & Agent Evaluation," with three named capabilities: agentic traces, RLHF and fine-tuning, and LLM evaluations.

What each workflow looks like in practice

  • Agentic traces: Connect observability tools so you can review agent runs step by step, with humans in the loop. Useful when an agent fails mid-task and you need to see which tool call or reasoning step went wrong.
  • RLHF and fine-tuning: Collect human preferences, corrections, and rankings. This is the raw material for preference datasets used to fine-tune or align a model.
  • LLM evaluations: Build custom benchmarks and rubrics, and run side-by-side comparisons between model outputs.
  • RAG and retrieval QA: Judge whether retrieved passages are relevant and whether generated answers are actually supported by the source text.

Who this fits

A practical scenario: a small ML team shipping a RAG assistant wants a reviewer to score 200 generated answers against their source documents, then export preference pairs for fine-tuning. Label Studio's value here is that labeling, evaluation, and human-in-the-loop review live in one tool rather than three, and it supports other modalities (computer vision, documents, audio) if your project expands.

Trade-offs to weigh

The open-source core is self-hosted, which means you manage installation, storage, and user access yourself. If you want managed hosting, team features, or enterprise controls, that points to the commercial version rather than the OSS download. Setup is developer-oriented: the page shows pip, Homebrew, Git, and Docker install paths, so expect an engineering-oriented onboarding rather than a plug-and-play SaaS signup.

Next step

Match the workflow to your data type before committing. If your task is preference ranking between two outputs, start with the RLHF/ranking template; if it is grading answers against retrieved context, start with the RAG evaluation setup. Reviewing the template list against your actual task is faster than adapting a mismatched one later. For the commercial feature split, see HumanSignal.

What pricing plans and version comparisons are available for Label Studio?

Label Studio separates the open-source product from paid plans. The free, self-hosted version is the one you install and run yourself—via pip, Homebrew, or Docker—and the site points to a "Compare Versions" link for differences between the OSS edition and commercial offerings. Paid pricing is handled by HumanSignal, the company behind the project, through its HumanSignal pricing page.

What you can compare

  • Open source (self-hosted): You download and run it on your own infrastructure. Costs are your own hosting and maintenance, not a license fee.
  • Commercial versions: The comparison link on labelstud.io directs to the vendor's version comparison, where features and support tiers are listed side by side.

Because the site does not publish specific prices on the Label Studio page itself, treat the Humansignal pricing page as the authoritative source for current figures and plan names rather than relying on secondhand summaries.

A practical next step Decide first whether self-hosting fits your constraints. If your team has engineers who can run Docker and manage a server, start with the open-source install and evaluate it against your actual labeling tasks—audio transcription, object detection, or LLM evaluation. If you need managed hosting, support SLAs, or enterprise features, use the version comparison to identify which tier includes them, then request a quote from the vendor.

How does Label Studio support audio transcription and speaker diarization?

Label Studio treats audio as a first-class data type rather than a side feature. Its audio and speech tooling is built around two related tasks: transcription and speaker diarization.

Audio transcription

The platform provides a transcription interface designed for speed and precision at scale. Annotators work against the audio while producing text, and the source material can be viewed as either a waveform or a spectrogram. That choice matters in practice: waveform view is often easier for reading timing and pauses, while a spectrogram helps when speech is noisy or when you need to inspect frequency content. The page also states support for advanced audio files and use cases, so the workflow is not limited to short, clean clips.

Speaker diarization

Diarization is presented as partitioning an input audio stream into homogeneous segments according to speaker identity. In other words, instead of only writing down what was said, you mark who spoke when. This is the task you need for meeting transcripts, call-center recordings, interviews and multi-participant research, where a single block of text without speaker turns is much less useful.

There is also an emotion recognition option for tagging and identifying emotion from audio. That is a separate labeling dimension you can combine with transcription or diarization when your project needs it.

How the pieces fit together

Task What the annotator produces Typical use
Transcription Text aligned to the audio Captions, subtitles, searchable archives
Diarization Speaker-labeled time segments Meetings, interviews, call recordings
Emotion recognition Emotion tags on audio Sentiment and tone analysis

Because these are annotation tasks inside one platform, a team can run transcription and diarization in the same project rather than stitching together separate tools.

A practical next step

If you are evaluating it for a real project, start with a short representative clip that includes at least two speakers and some background noise. Run it through the audio transcription template, switch between waveform and spectrogram, and check whether diarization segments line up with the speaker turns you expect. That single test will tell you more about fit than any feature list.

For related open-source options, you can also look at Prodigy for scriptable annotation workflows or doccano for text and sequence labeling.

How can I integrate Label Studio with machine learning models for pre-labeling and active learning?

Label Studio supports model-assisted labeling through its machine learning backend: you run a model as a small web service, connect it to the Label Studio instance, and predictions flow into the annotation interface. Annotators then correct or accept those predictions instead of labeling from scratch.

Pre-labeling vs. active learning

  • Pre-labeling: run your model over the whole dataset once, import the predictions, and have humans verify them. Best when you already have a reasonably accurate model and want to cut annotation time.
  • Active learning: select the samples the model is least confident about (or where predictions disagree), send only those to annotators, retrain on the new labels, and repeat. Best when labels are expensive and you want each annotation to improve the model the most.
Approach When to use Main trade-off
Pre-labeling Model is decent; dataset is small to medium Bias toward existing model errors; annotators may rubber-stamp
Active learning Model improves with feedback; labeling budget is tight Requires a retraining loop and confidence scoring

A practical setup

  1. Install the open-source package in a Python virtual environment (pip install -U label-studio) and launch it, or run the Docker image and visit the local port it prints.
  2. Serve your model behind an HTTP endpoint that returns predictions in Label Studio's expected format.
  3. Connect that endpoint as an ML backend in the project settings, then trigger predictions for your tasks.
  4. Configure the labeling interface so predictions appear as pre-annotations. Label Studio's own documentation lists task types such as object detection with boxes, polygons, and keypoints; PDF and image OCR; named entity recognition; audio transcription with waveform or spectrogram views; speaker diarization; and agent-trace or RLHF review.
  5. For active learning, add a scoring step: sort tasks by low confidence or disagreement, label the top slice, retrain, and re-score.

Concrete scenario

A team transcribing call recordings connects a speech model as the backend so transcripts arrive pre-filled; annotators fix wording and speaker turns in the waveform view. Once error rates plateau, they switch to sampling only low-confidence clips for review.

Decision criterion

Start with pre-labeling if your model is already usable and you mainly need speed. Move to active learning once retraining is cheap and you can measure where the model is weak — otherwise the extra loop adds complexity without much gain.

For the exact API contract and supported interface configurations, see the project's documentation at Label Studio.

Related questions

More questions →
What Are Open-Source UI Element Libraries and How Do They Differ From UI Frameworks?

An open-source UI element library is a collection of individual, ready-made interface pieces—buttons, cards, inputs, toggles, loaders—that you copy into your own project and adapt. A UI framework, by contrast, is a structured system of components, conventions, and often a theming layer that governs how your whole interface is built. The practical difference: an element library gives you a snippet; a framework gives you a way of working. If you need a polished button in ten minutes, reach for the element library. If you're building a 40-screen product with a team, you probably want the framework.

What "open-source UI element library" actually means

The term gets used loosely, so it helps to separate the parts:

  • Open-source: the code is publicly available, and the license tells you what you may do with it—copy, modify, redistribute, or use commercially.
  • UI element: a single, self-contained piece of interface, usually small enough to read in one sitting. A button with hover states, a pricing card, a search field.
  • Library: a browsable, searchable collection of those elements, typically contributed by many different people.

On a site like Uiverse, elements are shared by a community and written in plain CSS or Tailwind. You find one you like, copy the markup and styles, paste them into your project, and adjust colors, spacing, and text to fit. There's no package to install and no build step required—which is exactly the appeal, and also the source of most of the confusion.

Element library vs. UI framework: the core differences

Dimension Open-source UI element library UI framework / design system
Unit of reuse A single snippet you copy A component you import or call
Installation None; paste into your code Package install, config, sometimes a provider
Consistency Depends on you; each element may look different Enforced by shared tokens and APIs
Theming Manual edits per element Central theme/config file
Updates You own the copy; no upstream updates Version bumps bring fixes and changes
Accessibility Varies per contributor; must be checked Usually tested and documented
Best for Prototypes, landing pages, small sites, one-off needs Multi-page apps, teams, long-lived products
Learning curve Low—read the CSS Higher—learn the API and conventions

The table isn't a verdict. It's a map of trade-offs. Element libraries win on speed and freedom; frameworks win on consistency and maintenance.

Licensing and attribution: what to check before you paste

This is where people get into trouble, and it's worth slowing down for.

  1. Find the license. Every element or collection should state one. Common open-source licenses include MIT, Apache-2.0, and BSD. Some projects use copyleft licenses like GPL, which can impose obligations if you redistribute your code.
  2. Understand what the license permits. MIT and Apache-2.0 are permissive: you can typically use the code in commercial and closed-source projects. Copyleft licenses may require you to release derivative source under the same terms.
  3. Check attribution requirements. Permissive licenses usually require you to keep the copyright notice and license text somewhere in your project. That's a real obligation, not a formality.
  4. Look for per-element terms. On community sites, the site's overall terms and the individual contributor's stated wishes may differ. If a contributor asks for credit, honor it.
  5. When in doubt, ask or avoid. If a snippet has no license at all, you don't have clear permission to reuse it. Treat "no license" as "not open source," even if the code is publicly visible.

This article is general information, not legal advice. For commercial products with real exposure, have someone qualified review the licenses you're relying on.

How to use a community element in your project: a practical workflow

Here's a repeatable process that avoids most of the usual mess.

1. Start from a real need, not a browsing session

Decide what you need first—"a compact primary button with a loading state"—then search. Browsing aimlessly produces a pile of pretty snippets that don't fit together.

2. Copy the smallest version that works

Take the markup and the styles. Strip anything you don't need: demo wrappers, extra animations, decorative layers. Less code means fewer surprises.

3. Convert it to your conventions

If your project uses design tokens or CSS variables, replace hard-coded values:

/* Before: hard-coded */
.button { background: #4f46e5; border-radius: 8px; }

/* After: token-based */
.button { background: var(--color-primary); border-radius: var(--radius-md); }

This one step is what keeps a copied element from looking like a foreign object in your UI.

4. Check accessibility before you ship

Community elements vary widely here. Verify at minimum:

  • Keyboard focus is visible and the element is reachable by Tab.
  • Color contrast meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for normal text).
  • Interactive elements use semantic HTML (<button>, not a clickable <div>).
  • Form inputs have associated labels.
  • Motion respects prefers-reduced-motion.

5. Test in context

Paste it into a real page with real content. Long labels, small screens, and dark mode break more copied elements than anything else.

6. Note where it came from

Keep a short comment or an internal credits file: source, license, date. Future you—and your legal reviewer—will be grateful.

Where element libraries genuinely shine

  • Prototypes and demos: you need something clickable today, not a design system.
  • Landing pages and marketing sites: a handful of distinctive elements, each custom.
  • Filling gaps: your framework lacks one specific component, and you don't want to build it from scratch.
  • Learning: reading well-made CSS is one of the fastest ways to improve.
  • Small projects: a personal site doesn't need a theming architecture.

Where they fall short

  • Consistency at scale: ten elements from ten contributors rarely look like one product.
  • Maintenance: you own every copy. When your design changes, you edit each one.
  • Accessibility debt: you inherit whatever the contributor did or didn't do.
  • No upstream fixes: a bug fixed in the original won't reach your copy.
  • Integration friction: different naming conventions, different units, different assumptions about resets.

When to choose which

Choose an element library when the scope is small, the timeline is short, or you need a few distinctive pieces rather than a whole system.

Choose a framework or design system when multiple people build multiple screens over months, when consistency is a product requirement, or when accessibility and theming need to be guaranteed rather than checked.

A hybrid works well for many teams: adopt a framework for the structural components—forms, navigation, layout—and borrow individual elements for the places where you want personality. Just route every borrowed element through the same token and accessibility checks, so it lands as part of your system rather than beside it.

The short version: open-source UI element libraries are a fast, flexible way to get good-looking interface pieces into a project. They are not a substitute for a design system, and the license and accessibility details are the part worth reading carefully.

How Does AI Audio Transcription Work and What Affects Its Accuracy?

AI audio transcription converts speech into text by combining signal processing with machine learning models trained on huge amounts of paired audio and text. In practice, the pipeline runs through several stages: audio preprocessing, acoustic and language modeling, punctuation and formatting, and—if enabled—speaker diarization and summarization. Accuracy is not a single fixed number; it depends on recording quality, accents, background noise, overlapping speech, vocabulary, and how well the chosen language is supported. This article explains each stage and the practical factors that move accuracy up or down, so you can judge when automated transcription is enough and when human review still matters.

The core pipeline: from sound wave to readable text

1. Audio preprocessing

Before any speech recognition happens, the file is normalized and cleaned up. Typical steps include:

  • Resampling to a consistent sample rate (commonly 16 kHz for speech models).
  • Channel handling: mono conversion or selecting the dominant channel when stereo tracks differ.
  • Noise reduction and gain normalization to bring quiet speakers up and steady loud peaks.
  • Voice activity detection (VAD) to find where speech actually occurs and skip silence.

Good preprocessing improves everything downstream. A clean, consistent input gives the model less to compensate for.

2. Speech recognition (acoustic + language modeling)

Modern systems use neural networks—often transformer-based—that map short audio frames to probable words or subword units. Two components work together:

  • The acoustic model estimates which sounds were spoken.
  • The language model estimates which word sequences are plausible in the target language.

The decoder combines both to produce the most likely transcript. This is why context matters: a model that "knows" a phrase is common will favor it over a phonetically similar but unlikely alternative.

3. Punctuation, casing, and formatting

Raw recognition output is a stream of words. A separate step adds:

  • Sentence boundaries and punctuation.
  • Capitalization of proper nouns and sentence starts.
  • Number, date, and currency formatting.

These are learned from text data, so they follow the conventions of the training material rather than any single style guide.

4. Speaker diarization

Diarization answers "who spoke when." The system extracts voice characteristics (embeddings) from each speech segment, clusters similar segments, and assigns labels like Speaker 1, Speaker 2. It works best when speakers sound distinct and don't talk over each other. Overlapping speech and similar voices are the main failure modes.

5. Summaries and derived outputs

Once a transcript exists, summarization models condense it into key points, action items, or topics. Because summaries are generated from the transcript, any transcription error can propagate into the summary. Speaker labels also let a summary attribute statements to the right person—if diarization was accurate.

What actually affects accuracy

Accuracy varies widely by conditions. The table below summarizes the main factors and their typical effect.

Factor Why it matters Practical impact
Audio quality / bitrate Low bitrate or clipping destroys phonetic detail Major
Background noise Music, traffic, chatter mask speech Major
Microphone distance Far-field audio is reverberant and quiet Major
Accents and dialects Training data may underrepresent them Moderate to major
Overlapping speech Models struggle to separate simultaneous voices Major for diarization
Speaking rate Very fast speech blurs word boundaries Moderate
Domain vocabulary Jargon, names, acronyms are rare in training data Moderate to major
Language coverage Less-resourced languages have weaker models Major
Audio length / consistency Mixed conditions within one file Moderate

Language coverage and multilingual models

A system advertising "54+ languages" does not mean equal quality in all of them. High-resource languages (English, Spanish, French, German) usually have more training data and better accuracy. Lower-resource languages may show more errors, especially with specialized terms. Multilingual models can handle code-switching—mixing languages in one conversation—but results depend on how much mixed-language data the model saw. If your content is in a less common language, test a sample before committing.

Domain-specific vocabulary

Names, product terms, medical or legal jargon, and acronyms are frequent error sources because they're rare in general training text. Many tools let you supply a custom vocabulary or keyword list to bias the decoder. This is one of the highest-leverage fixes you can apply.

Practical steps to improve your results

  1. Record well. Use a close microphone, a quiet room, and a consistent setup. This single step often matters more than any setting.
  2. Use one speaker per channel when possible; it makes diarization trivial and more reliable.
  3. Add a custom vocabulary for names, brands, and technical terms.
  4. Choose the correct language explicitly rather than relying on auto-detection, especially for short clips.
  5. Review the transcript against the audio for high-stakes content.
  6. Check speaker labels if attribution matters; correct them before generating summaries.

A simple quality-check template

For any important recording, run this quick pass:

  • [ ] Does the transcript match the audio in the first two minutes?
  • [ ] Are proper nouns and numbers correct?
  • [ ] Are speaker labels consistent and correctly assigned?
  • [ ] Do punctuation and paragraph breaks aid readability?
  • [ ] Does the summary reflect the actual discussion, not just keywords?

When human review is still needed

Automated transcription is fast and increasingly accurate, but certain situations call for a human pass:

  • Legal, medical, or financial records where a single word changes meaning.
  • Heavily accented or overlapping speech in noisy environments.
  • Highly technical content with dense jargon.
  • Anything published under your name where errors carry reputational cost.

A common workflow is machine transcription first, then targeted human editing—this captures most of the speed benefit while controlling risk.

Choosing a tool: what to compare

When evaluating transcription software, compare on the dimensions that match your use case:

  • Language support for your specific languages, not just the headline count.
  • Speaker detection quality if you need attributed transcripts.
  • Custom vocabulary support.
  • Export formats (SRT, VTT, DOCX, JSON) for your downstream tools.
  • Summarization if you want derived outputs.
  • Pricing model—check the vendor's current pricing page, since plans and rates change.

Sonix, for example, positions itself around transcription in 54+ languages with AI summaries and speaker detection, and offers a free trial without a credit card. Verify current features and pricing directly on its site, as these details evolve.

Bottom line

AI transcription works by cleaning audio, recognizing speech with acoustic and language models, then adding punctuation, speaker labels, and summaries. Accuracy is driven less by the model alone and more by your recording conditions, language, vocabulary, and whether speakers overlap. Improve the input, supply domain terms, and reserve human review for high-stakes content—and you'll get reliable results from automated transcription in most everyday cases.

Website Overview

An advisory match combined with missing browser safeguards may increase exposure if the affected component is active. Deployment-specific verification and remediation deserve priority. Identifiable technologies and additional version or configuration signals make the service easier to fingerprint, which may help targeted scanners narrow their checks.

Domain and Registration

Registered in 2019, this domain has about 7 years of history. That suggests continuity, although ownership and purpose may have changed. The registrar is NameCheap, Inc., a widely used domain service provider. The domain uses the common .io extension, which is not an independent safety signal.

DNS and Email

Nameservers are provided by Amazon Route 53, indicating managed DNS hosting. MX records point to the Google Workspace email service. No CNAME was found; the observed records resolve directly to addresses. SPF and DMARC are configured. DKIM status is unknown. TXT records include verification markers for Google. Such markers may also remain after a service stops being used.

TLS and Certificates

The public key uses EC with 256 bits. The server supplied a complete certificate chain. No organization name is present in the certificate; the available fields are consistent with domain validation. The certificate was issued by Let's Encrypt, commonly associated with automated certificate services. The certificate's total validity is about 89 days, consistent with a short renewal cycle.

HTTP and Browser Security

The response lacks these common security headers: CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy. No X-Powered-By header was found, reducing one common source of backend fingerprinting information. No obvious internal addresses or debug information were found in the headers. The Server header contains the custom value Netlify. No explicit CDN or WAF marker was found in the response headers.

Technology Stack Analysis

The public page identifies Astro 6.3.2, Google Tag Manager, Netlify, with exact versions exposed for 1 technologies. These details can narrow vulnerability checks, although exposure alone is not a vulnerability. The advisory source OSV places Astro 6.3.2 in the affected range of GHSA-26w7-cxv4-gfx2, GHSA-2pvr-wf23-7pc7, GHSA-376h-93r7-7g6f, GHSA-4g3v-8h47-v7g6, GHSA-7pw4-f3q4-r2p2 等 8 项. Verify the deployed version and relevant configuration before drawing conclusions about exploitability. Updating affected components should be a priority.

Search and Social Sharing

The Generator tag identifies Astro v6.3.2, making the publishing system easier to fingerprint. No homepage canonical URL was detected. If duplicate URLs exist, consolidation may be less explicit. Open Graph is partially configured; og:type is missing. Twitter Card metadata is configured. The title has 58 characters, within a common display range.

Hosting and Email

DNSAmazon Route 53
HostingNetlify
EmailGoogle Workspace
Location United States flagUnited States 75.2.60.5

User reviews (0)

  • No reviews yet.

Pages, Search and Sharing

Meta descriptionMulti-modal data labeling and annotation platform for agent traces, LLM evals, RLHF, computer vision, document AI, NLP, audio transcription, and more.
Canonical URLNot detected
LanguageEnglish (default)
Twitter Cardsummary_large_image
All bots 1 allowed · 0 disallowed
  • Allow/

No sitemaps found

Registration details RDAP / WHOIS

RegistrarNameCheap, Inc.
Registered2019-09-19
Expires2027-09-19
Domain statusok https://icann.org/epp#ok
Nameserversns-1035.awsdns-01.org、ns-1995.awsdns-57.co.uk、ns-41.awsdns-05.com、ns-964.awsdns-56.net
DNSSECunsigned

DNS records

TypeNameValueTTLPriority
Alabelstud.io75.2.60.5300—
MXlabelstud.ioaspmx.l.google.com3001
MXlabelstud.ioalt1.aspmx.l.google.com3005
MXlabelstud.ioalt2.aspmx.l.google.com3005
MXlabelstud.ioalt3.aspmx.l.google.com30010
MXlabelstud.ioalt4.aspmx.l.google.com30010
NSlabelstud.ions-1035.awsdns-01.org172800—
NSlabelstud.ions-1995.awsdns-57.co.uk172800—
NSlabelstud.ions-41.awsdns-05.com172800—
NSlabelstud.ions-964.awsdns-56.net172800—
TXTlabelstud.iogoogle-site-verification=QBTytIRlAzwYSrT6CTvc0-V4sInvmGBBgdJ44_R1Rk0300—
TXTlabelstud.iov=spf1 include:7539937.spf02.hubspotemail.net -all300—
DMARC_dmarc.labelstud.iov=DMARC1; p=quarantine;300—

TLS and certificates

AssessmentNormal configuration
Supported protocolsTLSv1.2、TLSv1.3
Negotiated protocolTLSv1.3
Certificate subjectlabelstud.io
IssuerLet's Encrypt
Valid until2026-10-26T18:23 · Remaining when checked: 32 days
Verification detailsCertificate trust: Passed · Hostname match: Passed

HTTP response headers

HeaderValue
content-typetext/html; charset=UTF-8
cache-controlpublic,max-age=0,must-revalidate
serverNetlify
strict-transport-securitymax-age=31536000
x-frame-optionsSAMEORIGIN

Identified technologies

Astro 6.3.2Google Tag ManagerNetlify