Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Cambridge, MA
Live figures from 35 indexable audited Cambridge dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 19, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
71
median score
−3.00 vs Massachusetts median 74
71.29
average score
Massachusetts average: 70.97
79
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
35
websites audited
of 2,380 across Massachusetts
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Cambridge
Counts use all 35 indexable audited Cambridge websites.
A
2.86%
1 of 35
B
20.00%
7 of 35
C
37.14%
13 of 35
D
22.86%
8 of 35
F
17.14%
6 of 35
Massachusetts distribution: A 4% · B 31% · C 28% · D 15% · F 21% (2,380 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Cambridge 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 Cambridge websites are omitted.
94%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
33 of 35 evaluated Cambridge websites — vs 94.24% across Massachusetts.
91%
FAQPage structured data not detected
32 of 35 evaluated Cambridge websites — vs 95.46% across Massachusetts.
91%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
32 of 35 evaluated Cambridge websites — vs 93.36% across Massachusetts.
| Check | Cambridge rate | Massachusetts rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 51.43%18 of 35 evaluated | 59.20%1,409 of 2,380 evaluated | −7.77 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 71.43%25 of 35 evaluated | 63.78%1,518 of 2,380 evaluated | +7.65 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 25.71%9 of 35 evaluated | 32.27%768 of 2,380 evaluated | −6.56 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 54.29%19 of 35 evaluated | 49.75%1,184 of 2,380 evaluated | +4.54 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 42.86%15 of 35 evaluated | 47.23%1,124 of 2,380 evaluated | −4.37 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 91.43%32 of 35 evaluated | 95.46%2,272 of 2,380 evaluated | −4.03 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 68.57%24 of 35 evaluated | 65.80%1,566 of 2,380 evaluated | +2.77 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 71.43%25 of 35 evaluated | 68.70%1,635 of 2,380 evaluated | +2.73 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 42.86%15 of 35 evaluated | 40.46%963 of 2,380 evaluated | +2.40 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 37.14%13 of 35 evaluated | 34.79%828 of 2,380 evaluated | +2.35 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 91.43%32 of 35 evaluated | 93.36%2,222 of 2,380 evaluated | −1.93 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 65.71%23 of 35 evaluated | 67.52%1,607 of 2,380 evaluated | −1.81 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 45.71%16 of 35 evaluated | 47.39%1,128 of 2,380 evaluated | −1.68 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 71.43%25 of 35 evaluated | 72.48%1,725 of 2,380 evaluated | −1.05 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 40.00%14 of 35 evaluated | 39.50%940 of 2,380 evaluated | +0.50 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 57.14%20 of 35 evaluated | 57.61%1,371 of 2,380 evaluated | −0.47 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.29%33 of 35 evaluated | 94.24%2,243 of 2,380 evaluated | +0.05 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 Cambridge market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Cambridge
- How good are dental practice websites in Cambridge?
- Across 35 audited Cambridge dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 71 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 79 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Cambridge dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Cambridge dental websites are: “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (94% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (91% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (91% 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 Cambridge compare with the rest of Massachusetts?
- Cambridge's median score of 71 is 3 points below the Massachusetts-wide median of 74, based on 2,380 audited websites across Massachusetts.
- 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 Cambridge 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 Massachusetts 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 Cambridge 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.