Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 3,902Diagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 20:55
CScore 42
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
24
Views per post ≈ 18.7% of followers · ahead of 24% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
31
Followers +0.51% in 7 days · ahead of 31% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
95
91.4 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 95% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
24
5 posts in the last 13 days, on 4 of them
Content consistency
—
Needs at least 5 tweets past 24h in the last 14 days
Findings
Strengths
Engagement quality91.4 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 95% of similar-size accounts
To improve
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 18.7% of followers · ahead of 24% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence5 posts in the last 13 days, on 4 of them
Suggestions
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.
Posting is patchyWhat to doSettle into at least one post a day before adding volume.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether more of the 14 days had a post.
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.
