Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Fishers, IN
Live figures from 38 indexable audited Fishers dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 8, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
79
median score
+6.00 vs Indiana median 73
76.11
average score
Indiana average: 70.04
86
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
38
websites audited
of 1,711 across Indiana
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Fishers
Counts use all 38 indexable audited Fishers websites.
A
7.89%
3 of 38
B
42.11%
16 of 38
C
21.05%
8 of 38
D
18.42%
7 of 38
F
10.53%
4 of 38
Indiana distribution: A 4% · B 29% · C 28% · D 17% · F 23% (1,711 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Fishers 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 Fishers websites are omitted.
95%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
36 of 38 evaluated Fishers websites — vs 91.53% across Indiana.
95%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
36 of 38 evaluated Fishers websites — vs 94.86% across Indiana.
87%
FAQPage structured data not detected
33 of 38 evaluated Fishers websites — vs 95.44% across Indiana.
| Check | Fishers rate | Indiana rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 34.21%13 of 38 evaluated | 56.81%972 of 1,711 evaluated | −22.60 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 50.00%19 of 38 evaluated | 70.72%1,210 of 1,711 evaluated | −20.72 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 34.21%13 of 38 evaluated | 52.43%897 of 1,711 evaluated | −18.22 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 36.84%14 of 38 evaluated | 49.91%854 of 1,711 evaluated | −13.07 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 26.32%10 of 38 evaluated | 37.35%639 of 1,711 evaluated | −11.03 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 78.95%30 of 38 evaluated | 68.15%1,166 of 1,711 evaluated | +10.80 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 63.16%24 of 38 evaluated | 73.87%1,264 of 1,711 evaluated | −10.71 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 28.95%11 of 38 evaluated | 39.16%670 of 1,711 evaluated | −10.21 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 34.21%13 of 38 evaluated | 44.24%757 of 1,711 evaluated | −10.03 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 34.21%13 of 38 evaluated | 43.72%748 of 1,711 evaluated | −9.51 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 57.89%22 of 38 evaluated | 67.21%1,150 of 1,711 evaluated | −9.32 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 86.84%33 of 38 evaluated | 95.44%1,633 of 1,711 evaluated | −8.60 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 44.74%17 of 38 evaluated | 49.27%843 of 1,711 evaluated | −4.53 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 60.53%23 of 38 evaluated | 56.93%974 of 1,711 evaluated | +3.60 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.74%36 of 38 evaluated | 91.53%1,566 of 1,711 evaluated | +3.21 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 68.42%26 of 38 evaluated | 68.61%1,174 of 1,711 evaluated | −0.19 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.74%36 of 38 evaluated | 94.86%1,623 of 1,711 evaluated | −0.12 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 Fishers market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Fishers
- How good are dental practice websites in Fishers?
- Across 38 audited Fishers dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 79 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 86 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Fishers dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Fishers dental websites are: “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (87% 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 Fishers compare with the rest of Indiana?
- Fishers's median score of 79 is 6 points above the Indiana-wide median of 73, based on 1,711 audited websites across Indiana.
- 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 Fishers 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 Indiana 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 Fishers 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.