Most of its reach comes from replying under other people's posts; original posts are fewer.
Followers 4,750Diagnosed on 2026-11-13Followers 11-13 08:07Tweets 11-13 04:16
AScore 72
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 ≈ 597.6% of followers · ahead of 83% of similar-size accounts
Growth momentum
84
Followers +10.19% in 7 days · ahead of 84% of similar-size accounts
Engagement quality
36
6.5 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 36% of similar-size accounts
Posting cadence
70
109 posts in the last 10 days, on 5 of them
Content consistency
86
The top post took 17% of 14-day views (30 posts)
Findings
Strengths
Content consistencyThe top post took 17% of 14-day views (30 posts)
Growth momentumFollowers +10.19% in 7 days · ahead of 84% of similar-size accounts
To improve
Engagement quality6.5 likes and replies per 1,000 views · ahead of 36% 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.
