Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 921Diagnosed on 2026-10-11Followers 10-11 20:07Tweets 10-11 15:18
BScore 66
Reach check
Against the account's own previous week; not part of the score
Views look normalMedian views per post are +63% 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
82
Views per post ≈ 147.5% of followers · ahead of 82% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
49
Followers +1.41% in 7 days · ahead of 49% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
54
43.1 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 54% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
100
52 posts in the last 13 days, on 13 of them
Content consistency
35
The top post took 65% of 14-day views (45 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Posting cadence52 posts in the last 13 days, on 13 of them
View efficiencyViews per post ≈ 147.5% of followers · ahead of 82% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Content consistencyThe top post took 65% of 14-day views (45 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.
