Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Lansing, MI
Live figures from 40 indexable audited Lansing dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 20, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
70.50
median score
−2.50 vs Michigan median 73
67.58
average score
Michigan average: 69.79
79
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
40
websites audited
of 2,974 across Michigan
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Lansing
Counts use all 40 indexable audited Lansing websites.
A
0.00%
0 of 40
B
20.00%
8 of 40
C
30.00%
12 of 40
D
20.00%
8 of 40
F
30.00%
12 of 40
Michigan distribution: A 3% · B 26% · C 31% · D 16% · F 24% (2,974 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Lansing 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 Lansing websites are omitted.
100%
FAQPage structured data not detected
40 of 40 evaluated Lansing websites — vs 96.23% across Michigan.
98%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
39 of 40 evaluated Lansing websites — vs 94.38% across Michigan.
98%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
39 of 40 evaluated Lansing websites — vs 95.70% across Michigan.
| Check | Lansing rate | Michigan rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 57.50%23 of 40 evaluated | 42.40%1,261 of 2,974 evaluated | +15.10 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 45.00%18 of 40 evaluated | 34.94%1,039 of 2,974 evaluated | +10.06 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 60.00%24 of 40 evaluated | 51.75%1,539 of 2,974 evaluated | +8.25 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 62.50%25 of 40 evaluated | 54.44%1,619 of 2,974 evaluated | +8.06 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 80.00%32 of 40 evaluated | 72.02%2,142 of 2,974 evaluated | +7.98 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 80.00%32 of 40 evaluated | 72.90%2,168 of 2,974 evaluated | +7.10 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 47.50%19 of 40 evaluated | 40.82%1,214 of 2,974 evaluated | +6.68 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%40 of 40 evaluated | 96.23%2,862 of 2,974 evaluated | +3.77 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 70.00%28 of 40 evaluated | 73.50%2,186 of 2,974 evaluated | −3.50 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 97.50%39 of 40 evaluated | 94.38%2,807 of 2,974 evaluated | +3.12 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 60.00%24 of 40 evaluated | 62.98%1,873 of 2,974 evaluated | −2.98 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 97.50%39 of 40 evaluated | 95.70%2,846 of 2,974 evaluated | +1.80 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 70.00%28 of 40 evaluated | 68.22%2,029 of 2,974 evaluated | +1.78 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 52.50%21 of 40 evaluated | 51.41%1,529 of 2,974 evaluated | +1.09 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 67.50%27 of 40 evaluated | 66.51%1,978 of 2,974 evaluated | +0.99 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 35.00%14 of 40 evaluated | 35.31%1,050 of 2,974 evaluated | −0.31 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 57.50%23 of 40 evaluated | 57.67%1,715 of 2,974 evaluated | −0.17 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 Lansing market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Lansing
- How good are dental practice websites in Lansing?
- Across 40 audited Lansing dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 70.50 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 Lansing dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Lansing dental websites are: “FAQPage structured data not detected” (100% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (98% of evaluated sites); “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (98% 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 Lansing compare with the rest of Michigan?
- Lansing's median score of 70.50 is 2.5 points below the Michigan-wide median of 73, based on 2,974 audited websites across Michigan.
- 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 Lansing 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 Michigan 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 Lansing 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.