Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Auburn, CA
Live figures from 32 indexable audited Auburn dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit August 30, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
66.50
median score
−6.50 vs California median 73
64.75
average score
California average: 69.62
79.25
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
32
websites audited
of 14,081 across California
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Auburn
Counts use all 32 indexable audited Auburn websites.
A
0.00%
0 of 32
B
25.00%
8 of 32
C
15.63%
5 of 32
D
21.88%
7 of 32
F
37.50%
12 of 32
California distribution: A 4% · B 28% · C 27% · D 16% · F 25% (14,081 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Auburn dental websites fall short
“Not detected” means a signal was absent from the homepage and up to two linked pages in a bounded crawl; it does not prove the signal is absent everywhere on the site. Every percentage shows its own evaluated base; checks evaluated on fewer than 30 Auburn websites are omitted.
100%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
32 of 32 evaluated Auburn websites — vs 94.84% across California.
100%
FAQPage structured data not detected
32 of 32 evaluated Auburn websites — vs 95.48% across California.
97%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
31 of 32 evaluated Auburn websites — vs 91.36% across California.
| Check | Auburn rate | California rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 75.00%24 of 32 evaluated | 51.48%7,249 of 14,081 evaluated | +23.52 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 59.38%19 of 32 evaluated | 73.24%10,313 of 14,081 evaluated | −13.86 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 56.25%18 of 32 evaluated | 43.22%6,086 of 14,081 evaluated | +13.03 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 53.13%17 of 32 evaluated | 41.15%5,794 of 14,081 evaluated | +11.98 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 46.88%15 of 32 evaluated | 35.84%5,047 of 14,081 evaluated | +11.04 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 68.75%22 of 32 evaluated | 58.81%8,281 of 14,081 evaluated | +9.94 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 50.00%16 of 32 evaluated | 40.59%5,715 of 14,081 evaluated | +9.41 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 71.88%23 of 32 evaluated | 63.40%8,928 of 14,081 evaluated | +8.48 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 56.25%18 of 32 evaluated | 50.26%7,077 of 14,081 evaluated | +5.99 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 96.88%31 of 32 evaluated | 91.36%12,865 of 14,081 evaluated | +5.52 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 46.88%15 of 32 evaluated | 52.37%7,374 of 14,081 evaluated | −5.49 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%32 of 32 evaluated | 94.84%13,355 of 14,081 evaluated | +5.16 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%32 of 32 evaluated | 95.48%13,444 of 14,081 evaluated | +4.52 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 71.88%23 of 32 evaluated | 67.40%9,490 of 14,081 evaluated | +4.48 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 68.75%22 of 32 evaluated | 65.95%9,286 of 14,081 evaluated | +2.80 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 71.88%23 of 32 evaluated | 70.45%9,920 of 14,081 evaluated | +1.43 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 68.75%22 of 32 evaluated | 70.00%9,856 of 14,081 evaluated | −1.25 pp |
2026 US study baseline
The frozen national picture for the same checks
Rates from the 50,405-website 2026 US study cohort — a frozen study base that counts every audited domain, so it is a different denominator than the live evaluated figures above and the two must not be read as one series.
Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detected38.72%
Insurance or payment page not detected51.40%
Clear booking action not detected42.35%
Missing meta descriptions33.36%
Emergency-services page not detected58.40%
FAQ page not detected65.47%
Unclear H1 structure53.80%
Missing canonical tags26.14%
Limited useful content32.11%
Contact or inquiry form not detected68.70%
FAQPage structured data not detected95.57%
Images missing alternative text74.25%
XML sitemap not detected24.75%
BreadcrumbList structured data not detected63.60%
AggregateRating structured data not detected91.06%
Service or treatment structured data not detected91.90%
Privacy-policy link not detected42.09%
Explore the Auburn market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Auburn
- How good are dental practice websites in Auburn?
- Across 32 audited Auburn dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 66.50 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 79.25 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Auburn dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Auburn dental websites are: “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (100% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (100% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (97% of evaluated sites). “Not detected” is a bounded-crawl observation, not proof a signal is absent everywhere on a site.
- How does dental website quality in Auburn compare with the rest of California?
- Auburn's median score of 66.50 is 6.5 points below the California-wide median of 73, based on 14,081 audited websites across California.
- How can I check my own dental practice website's SEO?
- Run a free DentalPresence score: it audits a practice website against the same 37 checks behind every figure on this page and returns a prioritized list of what to fix first. No card is required.
Methodology and limitations
How these live figures are computed
Live cohort. Figures cover the indexable audited practice websites currently published for Auburn in the DentalPresence index and recompute as sites are re-audited, so they will drift from the frozen 2026 study numbers over time. Each check's percentage uses only the websites where that check was actually evaluated, shown as its base.
Scoring. Methodology dps-37-v1: a bounded HTTP crawl of robots.txt, sitemap signals, the homepage, and up to two linked internal pages, scored across 37 deterministic checks. “Not detected” is a limited observation, not proof of absence.
What is excluded. Crawl-accessibility findings (DNS failures, blocked crawls, timeouts) come from the frozen study run and use a different cohort base, so they are not restated here — see the California benchmark for them. Percentages are withheld wherever fewer than 30 websites form the base.
No clinical claims. Website signals only — not a clinical rating. These figures do not use rankings, traffic, conversions, credentials, or patient outcomes, and a failed check is not proof of lost revenue or poor care.
Use the benchmark
Score a dental website against the same framework
The Auburn figures describe a market, not an individual practice. Run a free score to inspect the public website signals detected for one practice — the same 37-check framework behind every number on this page.