Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 17.1KDiagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 21:46
AScore 71
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are +3% 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
78
Views per post ≈ 186.0% of followers · ahead of 78% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
72
Followers +7.06% in 7 days · ahead of 72% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
27
6.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 27% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
100
46 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
Content consistency
90
The top post took 13% of 14-day views (34 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence46 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
Content consistencyThe top post took 13% of 14-day views (34 posts)
To improve
Engagement quality6.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 27% 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.
