Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 2,790Diagnosed on 2026-10-12Followers 10-12 20:07Tweets 10-12 21:33
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 70% 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
86
Views per post ≈ 473.1% of followers · ahead of 86% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
71
Followers +13.48% in 7 days · ahead of 71% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
11
5.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 11% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
96
389 posts in the last 14 days, on 13 of them
Content consistency
60
The top post took 40% of 14-day views (141 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence389 posts in the last 14 days, on 13 of them
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 473.1% of followers · ahead of 86% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Engagement quality5.3 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 11% 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.
