Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 14.3KDiagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 14:47
CScore 47
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Can't compare yetNeeds at least 3 tweets past 24h in each of the last two weeks.
Scores by dimension
Out of 100 · 50 = the median of similar-size accounts
View efficiency
39
Views per post ≈ 27.7% of followers · ahead of 39% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
—
Needs 7 days of follower snapshots
Engagement quality
67
18.9 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 67% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
—
Needs 7 days of tweet data
Content consistency
29
The top post took 74% of 14-day views (8 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Engagement quality18.9 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 67% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Content consistencyThe top post took 74% of 14-day views (8 posts)
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 27.7% of followers · ahead of 39% of similar-size accounts
Suggestions
Views are concentrated in a few hitsWhat to doTurn a hit's topic into a series so ordinary posts carry more of the reach.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether the top post's share of views has come down.
Views lag behind the follower countWhat to doLook at the top tweets by views and reuse their topics and openings.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether views per post ÷ followers has gone up.
The reach check compares the medians of the last two weeks; it shows a change in views, not its cause. The diagnosis uses only public data collected by this site: the account's own original posts (no retweets or replies), counted once a tweet is past 24h. View efficiency, growth and engagement are scored by rank among similar-size accounts (⅓–3× the followers); cadence and consistency by the account's own posting. A dimension without enough data is not scored and stays out of the total. For reference only — it says nothing about the account's standing on X.
