Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 9,587Diagnosed on 2026-11-04Followers 11-05 02:07Tweets 11-05 03:02
BScore 65
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are −2% versus the previous 7 days — no sign of a sharp drop.
Scores by dimension
Out of 100 · 50 = the median of similar-size accounts
View efficiency
36
Views per post ≈ 37.4% of followers · ahead of 36% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
91
Followers +15.84% in 7 days · ahead of 91% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
59
12.0 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 59% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
100
425 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
Content consistency
46
The top post took 55% of 14-day views (143 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence425 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
Growth momentumFollowers +15.84% in 7 days · ahead of 91% of similar-size accounts
To improve
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 37.4% of followers · ahead of 36% of similar-size accounts
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.
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.
