Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 5,536Diagnosed on 2026-11-04Followers 11-05 02:07Tweets 11-05 03:37
BScore 66
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
83
Views per post ≈ 667.2% of followers · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
62
Followers +4.91% in 7 days · ahead of 62% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
47
8.9 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 47% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
100
64 posts in the last 12 days, on 12 of them
Content consistency
15
The top post took 86% of 14-day views (42 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence64 posts in the last 12 days, on 12 of them
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 667.2% of followers · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Content consistencyThe top post took 86% of 14-day views (42 posts)
Suggestions
Views are concentrated in a few hitsWhat to doTurn a hit's topic into a series so ordinary posts carry more of the reach.How to checkIn two weeks, see whether the top post's share of views has come down.
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.
