This was an interesting test. It basically told me what I already knew. I think something can be morally wrong even if it doesn't harm anyone, but I think most things that don't appear to harm people but are wrong do in fact harm someone -- the person doing them -- simply because doing something wrong harms you. It suggested that there was a tension here, but I don't really see it. It also told me that I don't have a strong tendency to need to see such behavior legally enforced or punished in this life, but it read that as not having a desire that people not do these things. It's worth thinking about the ways our moral intuitions interact with our explicit beliefs about morality, and this test helps do that. It also might expose potential conflicts within your belief system.
This one tests how parsimonious your moral thinking is, i.e. how many independent principles are at work in your moral reasoning. My score was 47%, much lower than the average 66%. That means I think some factors are crucial for the moral status of an action when most people think they're irrelevant. It isn't fine-tuned enough to detect exactly which principles make the difference for me. The ones it suggested weren't quite right, but they were at least in the right direction. The way the questions were worded actually prevented me from answering correctly in at least a couple questions that affected their results.
There were a couple other things at this site that were less interesting. At first I thought their God test was good, but it makes a couple huge logical blunders by excluding not just possible views but in some cases popular views among theistic philosophers and then saying such people contradict themselves out of not understanding what the view really says. So that one I don't recommend unless you're an atheist. As far as I know, it doesn't have the same problems for missing the fine nuances of atheistic views. If it does, then at least it's consistently insensitive to significant but fine nuances.