Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 9,755Diagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 15:09
BScore 66
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views dropped sharplyMedian views per post over the last 7 days are 53% below the 7 days before. It may be a change in topics or timing, or reduced distribution — public data can't tell which.
Scores by dimension
Out of 100 · 50 = the median of similar-size accounts
View efficiency
76
Views per post ≈ 175.6% of followers · ahead of 76% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
60
Followers +4.27% in 7 days · ahead of 60% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
27
6.7 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 27% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
100
378 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
Content consistency
74
The top post took 27% of 14-day views (81 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence378 posts in the last 14 days, on 14 of them
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 175.6% of followers · ahead of 76% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Engagement quality6.7 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.
