Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 160Diagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 21:11
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
—
Needs a tweet past 24h in the last 7 days
Growth momentum
59
Followers +1.25% in 7 days · ahead of 59% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
8
12.6 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 8% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
28
7 posts in the last 14 days, on 5 of them
Content consistency
89
The top post took 24% of 14-day views (7 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Content consistencyThe top post took 24% of 14-day views (7 posts)
To improve
Engagement quality12.6 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 8% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence7 posts in the last 14 days, on 5 of them
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.
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.
