Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Minneapolis, MN
Live figures from 102 indexable audited Minneapolis 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 Minnesota median 74
69.50
average score
Minnesota average: 70.95
81
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
102
websites audited
of 1,361 across Minnesota
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Minneapolis
Counts use all 102 indexable audited Minneapolis websites.
A
4.90%
5 of 102
B
26.47%
27 of 102
C
25.49%
26 of 102
D
19.61%
20 of 102
F
23.53%
24 of 102
Minnesota distribution: A 4% · B 31% · C 27% · D 17% · F 21% (1,361 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Minneapolis 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 Minneapolis websites are omitted.
95%
FAQPage structured data not detected
97 of 102 evaluated Minneapolis websites — vs 96.03% across Minnesota.
93%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
95 of 102 evaluated Minneapolis websites — vs 94.34% across Minnesota.
89%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
91 of 102 evaluated Minneapolis websites — vs 90.82% across Minnesota.
| Check | Minneapolis rate | Minnesota rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 74.51%76 of 102 evaluated | 66.79%909 of 1,361 evaluated | +7.72 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 42.16%43 of 102 evaluated | 34.83%474 of 1,361 evaluated | +7.33 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 47.06%48 of 102 evaluated | 53.86%733 of 1,361 evaluated | −6.80 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 69.61%71 of 102 evaluated | 64.66%880 of 1,361 evaluated | +4.95 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 50.98%52 of 102 evaluated | 46.51%633 of 1,361 evaluated | +4.47 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 70.59%72 of 102 evaluated | 66.35%903 of 1,361 evaluated | +4.24 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 45.10%46 of 102 evaluated | 41.07%559 of 1,361 evaluated | +4.03 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 75.49%77 of 102 evaluated | 72.59%988 of 1,361 evaluated | +2.90 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 47.06%48 of 102 evaluated | 49.52%674 of 1,361 evaluated | −2.46 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 89.22%91 of 102 evaluated | 90.82%1,236 of 1,361 evaluated | −1.60 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 42.16%43 of 102 evaluated | 43.72%595 of 1,361 evaluated | −1.56 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 93.14%95 of 102 evaluated | 94.34%1,284 of 1,361 evaluated | −1.20 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 73.53%75 of 102 evaluated | 72.45%986 of 1,361 evaluated | +1.08 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 95.10%97 of 102 evaluated | 96.03%1,307 of 1,361 evaluated | −0.93 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 66.67%68 of 102 evaluated | 65.83%896 of 1,361 evaluated | +0.84 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 32.35%33 of 102 evaluated | 31.81%433 of 1,361 evaluated | +0.54 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 50.00%51 of 102 evaluated | 50.26%684 of 1,361 evaluated | −0.26 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 Minneapolis market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Minneapolis
- How good are dental practice websites in Minneapolis?
- Across 102 audited Minneapolis dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 71 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 81 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Minneapolis dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Minneapolis dental websites are: “FAQPage structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (93% of evaluated sites); “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (89% 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 Minneapolis compare with the rest of Minnesota?
- Minneapolis's median score of 71 is 3 points below the Minnesota-wide median of 74, based on 1,361 audited websites across Minnesota.
- 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 Minneapolis 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 Minnesota 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 Minneapolis 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.