Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Portage, MI
Live figures from 42 indexable audited Portage dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 19, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
73
median score
0 vs Michigan median 73
68.71
average score
Michigan average: 69.80
79.75
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
42
websites audited
of 2,974 across Michigan
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Portage
Counts use all 42 indexable audited Portage websites.
A
4.76%
2 of 42
B
21.43%
9 of 42
C
30.95%
13 of 42
D
16.67%
7 of 42
F
26.19%
11 of 42
Michigan distribution: A 3% · B 27% · C 31% · D 16% · F 24% (2,974 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Portage 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 Portage websites are omitted.
100%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
42 of 42 evaluated Portage websites — vs 94.38% across Michigan.
100%
FAQPage structured data not detected
42 of 42 evaluated Portage websites — vs 96.23% across Michigan.
95%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
40 of 42 evaluated Portage websites — vs 95.70% across Michigan.
| Check | Portage rate | Michigan rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 69.05%29 of 42 evaluated | 54.40%1,618 of 2,974 evaluated | +14.65 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 73.81%31 of 42 evaluated | 63.01%1,874 of 2,974 evaluated | +10.80 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 57.14%24 of 42 evaluated | 51.38%1,528 of 2,974 evaluated | +5.76 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%42 of 42 evaluated | 94.38%2,807 of 2,974 evaluated | +5.62 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 40.48%17 of 42 evaluated | 35.04%1,042 of 2,974 evaluated | +5.44 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 52.38%22 of 42 evaluated | 57.57%1,712 of 2,974 evaluated | −5.19 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 100.00%42 of 42 evaluated | 96.23%2,862 of 2,974 evaluated | +3.77 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 76.19%32 of 42 evaluated | 72.86%2,167 of 2,974 evaluated | +3.33 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 69.05%29 of 42 evaluated | 66.54%1,979 of 2,974 evaluated | +2.51 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 40.48%17 of 42 evaluated | 42.40%1,261 of 2,974 evaluated | −1.92 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 50.00%21 of 42 evaluated | 51.68%1,537 of 2,974 evaluated | −1.68 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 69.05%29 of 42 evaluated | 68.19%2,028 of 2,974 evaluated | +0.86 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 71.43%30 of 42 evaluated | 71.99%2,141 of 2,974 evaluated | −0.56 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 95.24%40 of 42 evaluated | 95.70%2,846 of 2,974 evaluated | −0.46 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 35.71%15 of 42 evaluated | 35.31%1,050 of 2,974 evaluated | +0.40 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 40.48%17 of 42 evaluated | 40.82%1,214 of 2,974 evaluated | −0.34 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 73.81%31 of 42 evaluated | 73.54%2,187 of 2,974 evaluated | +0.27 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 Portage market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Portage
- How good are dental practice websites in Portage?
- Across 42 audited Portage dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 73 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 79.75 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Portage dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Portage dental websites are: “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (100% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (100% 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 Portage compare with the rest of Michigan?
- Portage's median score of 73 is equal to 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 Portage 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 Portage 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.