Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 567Diagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 21:35
AScore 82
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are +68% 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
98
Views per post ≈ 1410.3% of followers · ahead of 98% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
97
Followers +15.34% in 7 days · ahead of 97% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
60
44.2 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 60% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
96
52 posts in the last 14 days, on 13 of them
Content consistency
22
The top post took 78% of 14-day views (39 posts)
Findings
Strengths
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 1410.3% of followers · ahead of 98% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentumFollowers +15.34% in 7 days · ahead of 97% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Content consistencyThe top post took 78% of 14-day views (39 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.
