Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 17.1KDiagnosed on 2026-10-30Followers 10-30 08:07Tweets 10-30 09:40
AScore 76
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are +88% 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
92
Views per post ≈ 889.7% of followers · ahead of 92% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
98
Followers +24.14% in 7 days · ahead of 98% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
24
4.1 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 24% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
77
329 posts in the last 13 days, on 8 of them
Content consistency
80
The top post took 21% of 14-day views (62 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Growth momentumFollowers +24.14% in 7 days · ahead of 98% of similar-size accounts
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 889.7% of followers · ahead of 92% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Engagement quality4.1 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 24% of similar-size accounts
Suggestions
Plenty of views, little interactionWhat to doEnd posts with a clear question and answer the first few replies.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether likes and replies per 1,000 views have 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.
