Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Toms River, NJ
Live figures from 39 indexable audited Toms River dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 5, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
70
median score
−3.00 vs New Jersey median 73
69.36
average score
New Jersey average: 69.91
82.50
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
39
websites audited
of 3,264 across New Jersey
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Toms River
Counts use all 39 indexable audited Toms River websites.
A
5.13%
2 of 39
B
30.77%
12 of 39
C
15.38%
6 of 39
D
28.21%
11 of 39
F
20.51%
8 of 39
New Jersey distribution: A 4% · B 26% · C 31% · D 16% · F 23% (3,264 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Toms River 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 Toms River websites are omitted.
97%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
38 of 39 evaluated Toms River websites — vs 95.62% across New Jersey.
95%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
37 of 39 evaluated Toms River websites — vs 92.77% across New Jersey.
95%
FAQPage structured data not detected
37 of 39 evaluated Toms River websites — vs 95.71% across New Jersey.
| Check | Toms River rate | New Jersey rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 41.03%16 of 39 evaluated | 54.53%1,780 of 3,264 evaluated | −13.50 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 58.97%23 of 39 evaluated | 70.74%2,309 of 3,264 evaluated | −11.77 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 25.64%10 of 39 evaluated | 34.93%1,140 of 3,264 evaluated | −9.29 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 74.36%29 of 39 evaluated | 66.08%2,157 of 3,264 evaluated | +8.28 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 61.54%24 of 39 evaluated | 68.11%2,223 of 3,264 evaluated | −6.57 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 56.41%22 of 39 evaluated | 49.91%1,629 of 3,264 evaluated | +6.50 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 46.15%18 of 39 evaluated | 40.17%1,311 of 3,264 evaluated | +5.98 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 41.03%16 of 39 evaluated | 37.01%1,208 of 3,264 evaluated | +4.02 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 71.79%28 of 39 evaluated | 67.89%2,216 of 3,264 evaluated | +3.90 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 61.54%24 of 39 evaluated | 58.33%1,904 of 3,264 evaluated | +3.21 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.87%37 of 39 evaluated | 92.77%3,028 of 3,264 evaluated | +2.10 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 97.44%38 of 39 evaluated | 95.62%3,121 of 3,264 evaluated | +1.82 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 64.10%25 of 39 evaluated | 63.11%2,060 of 3,264 evaluated | +0.99 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 51.28%20 of 39 evaluated | 50.34%1,643 of 3,264 evaluated | +0.94 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.87%37 of 39 evaluated | 95.71%3,124 of 3,264 evaluated | −0.84 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 43.59%17 of 39 evaluated | 43.26%1,412 of 3,264 evaluated | +0.33 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 74.36%29 of 39 evaluated | 74.63%2,436 of 3,264 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 Toms River market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Toms River
- How good are dental practice websites in Toms River?
- Across 39 audited Toms River dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 70 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 82.50 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Toms River dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Toms River dental websites are: “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (97% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage 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 Toms River compare with the rest of New Jersey?
- Toms River's median score of 70 is 3 points below the New Jersey-wide median of 73, based on 3,264 audited websites across New Jersey.
- 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 Toms River 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 New Jersey 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 Toms River 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.