Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Cedar Rapids, IA
Live figures from 37 indexable audited Cedar Rapids dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 19, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
75
median score
+3.00 vs Iowa median 72
73.05
average score
Iowa average: 69.42
83
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
37
websites audited
of 669 across Iowa
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Cedar Rapids
Counts use all 37 indexable audited Cedar Rapids websites.
A
2.70%
1 of 37
B
29.73%
11 of 37
C
43.24%
16 of 37
D
8.11%
3 of 37
F
16.22%
6 of 37
Iowa distribution: A 4% · B 22% · C 33% · D 18% · F 23% (669 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Cedar Rapids 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 Cedar Rapids websites are omitted.
100%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
37 of 37 evaluated Cedar Rapids websites — vs 95.67% across Iowa.
97%
FAQPage structured data not detected
36 of 37 evaluated Cedar Rapids websites — vs 97.61% across Iowa.
95%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
35 of 37 evaluated Cedar Rapids websites — vs 93.87% across Iowa.
| Check | Cedar Rapids rate | Iowa rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 21.62%8 of 37 evaluated | 45.29%303 of 669 evaluated | −23.67 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 27.03%10 of 37 evaluated | 45.14%302 of 669 evaluated | −18.11 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 83.78%31 of 37 evaluated | 70.70%473 of 669 evaluated | +13.08 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 45.95%17 of 37 evaluated | 58.00%388 of 669 evaluated | −12.05 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 24.32%9 of 37 evaluated | 35.13%235 of 669 evaluated | −10.81 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 24.32%9 of 37 evaluated | 34.83%233 of 669 evaluated | −10.51 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 62.16%23 of 37 evaluated | 71.90%481 of 669 evaluated | −9.74 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 81.08%30 of 37 evaluated | 74.44%498 of 669 evaluated | +6.64 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 54.05%20 of 37 evaluated | 60.39%404 of 669 evaluated | −6.34 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 62.16%23 of 37 evaluated | 68.46%458 of 669 evaluated | −6.30 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 48.65%18 of 37 evaluated | 54.56%365 of 669 evaluated | −5.91 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%37 of 37 evaluated | 95.67%640 of 669 evaluated | +4.33 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 48.65%18 of 37 evaluated | 52.32%350 of 669 evaluated | −3.67 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 64.86%24 of 37 evaluated | 62.63%419 of 669 evaluated | +2.23 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.59%35 of 37 evaluated | 93.87%628 of 669 evaluated | +0.72 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 97.30%36 of 37 evaluated | 97.61%653 of 669 evaluated | −0.31 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 70.27%26 of 37 evaluated | 70.40%471 of 669 evaluated | −0.13 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 Cedar Rapids market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Cedar Rapids
- How good are dental practice websites in Cedar Rapids?
- Across 37 audited Cedar Rapids dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 75 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 83 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Cedar Rapids dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Cedar Rapids dental websites are: “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (100% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (97% of evaluated sites); “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (95% 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 Cedar Rapids compare with the rest of Iowa?
- Cedar Rapids's median score of 75 is 3 points above the Iowa-wide median of 72, based on 669 audited websites across Iowa.
- 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 Cedar Rapids 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 Iowa 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 Cedar Rapids 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.