Instapect
Sign inCreate account
@vinijr profile picture

Vinicius Jr. ⚡️🇧🇷 Verified

@vinijr · Creators & Celebrities

Not published
Followers
Not published
Following
703
Posts
50Instapect ScoreC−

Instapect Score

50/100 · grade C− — a performance read, benchmarked against under 10K followers.

Nano tier0 followersAudience Reach0/100Benchmarked against under 10K followers
Engagement rate
Not measurable

by followers · typical 2.50%

Avg likes
4.2M

median 4M

Avg comments
73.3K

median 47.7K

Cadence
1.2

posts / week · 6.0 d apart

Comment-to-like
1.75%

healthy band 1–3%

Median ER
Not measurable

middle post in the sample

Public-profile audit · 12 posts sampled · retrieved 28 Aug 2026· served from 24h cache

@realmadrid @nikefootball

How the score was built

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

The audience talks back

1.75 comments per 100 likes falls inside the healthy 1–3% band. Comments cost far more effort than a like, so this is a genuine sign the content invites a response.

Performance is genuinely consistent

Median likes (4,042,144) are 96% of the average (4,192,024). No viral outlier is propping up the average, so every number in this report describes what a typical post actually does — a dependable baseline is a real asset when planning.

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

69 /100

1.75 comments per 100 likes, inside the 1–3% healthy band. 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

1.75 comments per 100 likes mapped as 0%→5, 0.5%→30, 1.5%→65, 3%→90, ≥5%→100.

Consistency

17 /100

Posting cadence 1.16 posts per week, approaching the healthy 3–7 per week band. Gaps between posts vary by 0.98× the mean gap of 6.0 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 0.02 (1 − stdev 5.9d ÷ mean gap 6.0d) and cadence factor 0.39 from 1.2 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

57 /100

The best post in the window drew 2.2× the median post's likes — 1× means no post ever breaks out, 3× or more means the account reliably produces outliers worth repeating. 17% of sampled posts carry both a caption and at least one hashtag (a well-kept feed is usually above 80%), across 3 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 2.15× (top post 8,694,303 likes ÷ median 4,042,144) scoring 63, enrichment 0.17 (caption + ≥1 hashtag), format mix 1.0 (3 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.

Growth & cadence

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.

Create a free accountSign in

Engagement diagnostics

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

1.7%

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.

Create a free accountSign in

Content leaderboard

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.

Create a free accountSign in

Hashtags & mentions

Frequency from captions in the sample, with the average engagement rate of the posts each tag appears on. Association, not causation.

Free account required

Create a free account to see the full hashtag and mention detail, with the engagement associated with each tag.

Create a free accountSign in

Action plan

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.

Create a free accountSign in

Methodology & caveats

What this report measures, how, and what it deliberately does not claim.

What this account does not make measurable

  • Follower count is 0 or unavailable, so engagement rate cannot be computed (division by zero). Average likes and comments are shown as raw counts instead.
  • The content sample is the 12-item recent-posts window. The reels endpoint reaches further back and covers Reels only, so it is used to enrich matched items with their play count (3 matched) — never to extend the sample, which would inflate the Reel share and corrupt cadence.
  • 9 older Reels outside the content window are shown separately in "Top Reels by plays" with their own window, and are excluded from every average, the format mix and all cadence maths.
  • Play counts are published public counts shown only where the provider returns them. They are not reach, views or watch time, and none of those are available for a public-profile audit.

KPI definitions

  • Engagement rate by followers = (average likes + average comments) ÷ followers × 100.
  • Median engagement rate = the middle post's engagement rate in the sample; robust to viral outliers.
  • Posting cadence = (sampled posts − 1) ÷ days spanned × 7. Intervals, not posts: n posts span n−1 gaps. Unavailable below 2 posts or a zero-day window.
  • Instapect Score = 0.20 × Reach + 0.30 × Engagement + 0.20 × Engagement Quality + 0.15 × Consistency + 0.15 × Content Performance + 0.15 × Growth Signals, renormalised over the sub-scores that could be measured.
  • Comment-to-like ratio = average comments ÷ average likes × 100. A healthy conversational account sits between 1% and 3%.

Sample, source & limits

  • 12 public posts sampled (12 usable for like-based metrics) · retrieved 28 Aug 2026 · served from the 24-hour cache.
  • Only lawfully-visible public signals are used: published posts, visible counts, captions, hashtags, mentions and timestamps.
  • Instapect never reports reach, impressions, audience demographics, Story insights or Reels watch-time. Those are private to the account owner and any tool claiming them for a third party is guessing.
  • Benchmarks are published industry medians by follower tier and are indicative, not guarantees. Any forward-looking figure is labelled an estimate with its method stated.

Category: Football audit reports

Comparable profiles

Same category, closest follower tier — audited on identical sampling rules, so the numbers can be read side by side.

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.