Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 191KDiagnosed on 2026-11-13Followers 11-13 08:07Tweets 11-13 03:50
BScore 63
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are −42% 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
39
Views per post ≈ 16.7% of followers · ahead of 39% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
54
Followers +0.31% in 7 days · ahead of 54% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
83
14.4 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
82
21 posts in the last 13 days, on 13 of them
Content consistency
86
The top post took 19% of 14-day views (19 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Content consistencyThe top post took 19% of 14-day views (19 posts)
Engagement quality14.4 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
To improve
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 16.7% of followers · ahead of 39% 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.
