@erlinghaaland
Instapect Score
68/100 · grade B− — a performance read, benchmarked against under 10K followers.
by followers · typical 2.50%
median 227
median 13
posts / week · 84.1 d apart
healthy band 1–3%
middle post in the sample
The verdict is at the top of the page; this is the reasoning underneath it. Every sub-score prints its own weight and formula — no black box.
Archetype
Developing Profile
No single pattern dominates yet. The sub-scores below show which dimension moves the result most.
Nominal weights: Reach 20% · Engagement 30% · Engagement Quality 20% · Consistency 15% · Content Performance 15% · Growth 15% · composite from 3 of 6 signals — unavailable sub-scores are excluded from both sums, not scored zero
Audience Reach
0 /100
Nano tier
0 followers (under 10K followers). An asset score: how many people this account can reach. It does not move with how well the posts perform.
What this means
Posting frequency is the most controllable lever
At 0.08 posts per week — one every 84 days — the account publishes less than once a week. Unlike engagement rate, cadence is entirely within the owner's control, which makes it the cheapest thing on this page to change.
A few posts carry the average
Median likes (227) are only 47% of the average (487), so a small number of strong posts is lifting the mean. Read the median as the typical result and treat the outliers as a template worth repeating.
Reach
Not measurable
Weight 20% · log-scaled followers: L = log10(followers); L≤3 → 5–25, 3<L≤6 → 25 + (L − 3) × 20, L>6 → 85 + (L − 6) × 15, capped 100
Follower count is unavailable, so audience size cannot be scored.
Engagement
Not measurable
Weight 30% · piecewise-linear percentile curve for under 10K followers: 0%→5, p25 1.20%→30, p50 2.50%→55, p90 5.00%→85, 9.00%→100
Follower count is unavailable, so engagement rate by followers cannot be divided.
Engagement Quality
100 /100
8.39 comments per 100 likes, above the 1–3% healthy band, an unusually conversational audience. A comment costs far more effort than a like, so this ratio measures conversation rather than reach.
Weight 20% · comment-to-like ratio = avg comments ÷ avg likes × 100, mapped 0%→5, 0.5%→30, 1.5%→65, 3%→90, ≥5%→100
8.39 comments per 100 likes mapped as 0%→5, 0.5%→30, 1.5%→65, 3%→90, ≥5%→100.
Consistency
1 /100
Posting cadence 0.08 posts per week, below the 1-per-week floor most active accounts clear. Gaps between posts vary by 1.35× the mean gap of 84.1 days — under 0.5× reads as a dependable rhythm.
Weight 15% · 60 × (1 − clamp(stdev(gaps) ÷ mean(gaps), 0, 1)) + 40 × cadence factor (0/wk → 0, 3/wk → 1.0, 3–7/wk → 1.0, 14/wk → 0.6, ≥21/wk → 0.3)
regularity 0.00 (1 − stdev 113.8d ÷ mean gap 84.1d) and cadence factor 0.03 from 0.1 posts/week (0→0, ramping to 1.0 at 3/wk, flat 1.0 through 7/wk, tapering to 0.6 at 14/wk and 0.3 at 21+/wk).
Content Performance
92 /100
The best post in the window drew 5.0× the median post's likes — 1× means no post ever breaks out, 3× or more means the account reliably produces outliers worth repeating. 67% of sampled posts carry both a caption and at least one hashtag (a well-kept feed is usually above 80%), across 2 distinct formats.
Weight 15% · 60 × upside score (top-post likes ÷ median likes: 1×→30, 2×→60, 3×→80, ≥5×→100) + 25 × caption-and-hashtag share + 15 × format mix (1.0 if ≥2 product types, else 0.5)
upside 5.00× (top post 2,043 likes ÷ median 227) scoring 100, enrichment 0.67 (caption + ≥1 hashtag), format mix 1.0 (2 distinct product types).
Growth Signals
Not measurable
Weight 15% · clamp(50 + weekly follower growth % × 25, 0, 100), where weekly % = (followers now ÷ followers then − 1) × 100 ÷ weeks
This is the first recorded audit of this account, so there is no observation window yet. Instagram publishes no follower history — Instapect measures growth by comparing snapshots it takes itself, and the trend appears from the second audit that is at least 7 days later.
Instagram publishes no follower history, so Instapect builds its own: every audit records a snapshot, and the trend below is measured across those snapshots. Everything else here comes from the visible posting record.
Follower growth
This is the first recorded audit of this account, so there is no observation window yet. Instagram publishes no follower history — Instapect measures growth by comparing snapshots it takes itself, and the trend appears from the second audit that is at least 7 days later.
Engagement rate per post (%)
This account hides like counts, or its follower count is unavailable, so a per-post engagement rate cannot be computed from public data. See the comment-only metrics instead.
Likes and comments per post
Unit: absolute interactions per post.
Free account required
Create a free account to see when this account posts and when its audience actually responds — weekday mix and hour-of-day heatmap.
Averages are easily distorted by one viral post. The median tells you what a typical post actually does — read them side by side.
Average engagement rate
—
Mean of (likes + comments) ÷ followers
Comment-only engagement rate
—
Comments ÷ followers × 100 — the honest fallback when likes are hidden
Median engagement rate
—
Middle post in the sample
Comment-to-like ratio
8.4%
Higher means more conversational audience
Like-based sample
12of 12 posts
Every sampled post shows its like count. Comment metrics use all 12 posts.
Free account required
Create a free account to see the full engagement distribution — how far the best and worst posts sit from the median.
Posts ranked by engagement rate by followers. Pinned posts are shown because a reader will recognise them, but they sit outside the measured window and feed no average, rate or rhythm.
Free account required
Create a free account to see the full content breakdown — every top post with its thumbnail and per-post engagement rate.
Prioritised by expected impact, written from the measured data above. The advisor sees only the metrics this report could actually compute — never an estimate, never a metric Instagram keeps private.
Free account required
Create a free account to read the full AI action plan, the content plan, post ideas, hashtag strategy and best time to post for this account.
What this report measures, how, and what it deliberately does not claim.
What this account does not make measurable
KPI definitions
Sample, source & limits
Category: Football audit reports
Same category, closest follower tier — audited on identical sampling rules, so the numbers can be read side by side.
@cristiano
679.7M followers · score 82
High-Engagement Community
@leomessi
516.2M followers · score 81
High-Engagement Community
@k.mbappe
136.9M followers · score 71
Developing Profile
@neymarjr
0 followers · score 46
Developing Profile
@vinijr
0 followers · score 50
Developing Profile
This report is built only from lawfully-visible public Instagram signals — published posts and visible counts. It contains no reach, impressions, demographics, Story insights or watch-time, because nobody outside the account can see those. Request removal and the report is delisted from the directory, the category hubs and the sitemap.
