AI-powered
YouTube Visibility Score
Paste a channel — get a 0-100 composite Visibility Score across CTR Potential, Metadata Quality, Niche Headroom, and Growth Trajectory.
Paste a channel — get a 0-100 composite Visibility Score across CTR Potential, Metadata Quality, Niche Headroom, and Growth Trajectory.
The Visibility Score is the highest-level metric in our toolkit. All the other tools answer specific diagnostic questions — "does this title score well", "is this video's description long enough", "what are the outliers on this channel." The Visibility Score collapses all of those signals into one comparable number, so two channels can be benchmarked side by side without reading through eight separate audit reports.
| Sub-score | Weight | Source |
|---|---|---|
| CTR Potential | 35% | Average title score across last 30 uploads |
| Metadata Quality | 25% | Average Video Audit overall score |
| Growth Trajectory | 25% | % of videos with views ≥ 1.5× the channel median |
| Niche Headroom | 15% | Log-scaled median-views-to-subscribers ratio |
A composite 0-100 metric that summarizes a channel's overall packaging health and growth dynamics in a single number. It's calculated from four sub-scores — CTR Potential, Metadata Quality, Niche Headroom, Growth Trajectory — weighted by their impact on actual channel growth. The composite is what you share; the sub-scores tell you which lever to pull.
CTR Potential (35%): average title quality across the last 30 uploads. Metadata Quality (25%): average overall Video Audit score across description, hashtags, and chapters. Niche Headroom (15%): how much room the channel has to grow into a wider audience, approximated from the ratio of median views to subscriber count. Growth Trajectory (25%): outlier rate — what % of videos break through 1.5× the channel's median view count.
CTR carries the most weight because thumbnail and title are the single biggest lever in YouTube's current algorithm — they decide whether a video gets clicked at all. Metadata follows as it shapes how the algorithm classifies the content. Growth Trajectory matters as a leading indicator of audience expansion. Niche Headroom is weighted least because the underlying view-to-subscriber ratio is the noisiest signal — high-quality channels with very loyal audiences can score lower here even when they're healthy.
The ratio of median views to subscribers gives us a measure of how far the channel reaches beyond its existing subscriber base. A ratio of 0.05 (5% reach) is weak. 0.20 is typical for an established channel. 0.50+ means the algorithm is regularly pushing the channel beyond its base — strong sign of headroom. We map this on a log scale so the difference between 1% and 10% reach matters more than between 50% and 60%.
A (85-100): channel-wide packaging discipline with healthy growth signals. B (70-84): strong, with one or two sub-scores letting it down. C (55-69): mixed — packaging is fine but growth is flat, or vice versa. D (40-54): packaging issues compounding. F (0-39): systematic gaps in multiple dimensions. The grade is meant for quick reading; the sub-scores tell you where to act.
After computing the four sub-scores, Claude Haiku writes a one-sentence positioning statement naming the channel's biggest strength AND biggest gap. The sentence is designed to be quotable — usable as a Twitter share, a dashboard caption, or a starting point for your own channel review.
Channel Audit gives you a detailed per-dimension breakdown — 'how are my descriptions doing across recent videos.' Visibility Score gives you a single composite metric — 'where is my channel overall, in one number, vs everyone else.' The first is diagnosis. The second is positioning. Use Channel Audit when you're optimizing; use Visibility Score when you're benchmarking.
Visibility Score sits above the diagnostic tools — drill into any sub-score with these: