Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Adelaide, SA
Live figures from 264 indexable audited Adelaide dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 19, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
72
median score
+1.00 vs South Australia median 71
70.69
average score
South Australia average: 69.79
81
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
264
websites audited
of 413 across South Australia
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Adelaide
Counts use all 264 indexable audited Adelaide websites.
A
3.41%
9 of 264
B
25.00%
66 of 264
C
32.58%
86 of 264
D
19.70%
52 of 264
F
19.32%
51 of 264
South Australia distribution: A 3% · B 22% · C 32% · D 22% · F 21% (413 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Adelaide 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 Adelaide websites are omitted.
95%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
251 of 264 evaluated Adelaide websites — vs 96.13% across South Australia.
93%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
245 of 264 evaluated Adelaide websites — vs 94.43% across South Australia.
92%
FAQPage structured data not detected
243 of 264 evaluated Adelaide websites — vs 92.98% across South Australia.
| Check | Adelaide rate | South Australia rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 34.09%90 of 264 evaluated | 38.98%161 of 413 evaluated | −4.89 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 65.15%172 of 264 evaluated | 69.98%289 of 413 evaluated | −4.83 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 60.23%159 of 264 evaluated | 64.16%265 of 413 evaluated | −3.93 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 29.17%77 of 264 evaluated | 32.93%136 of 413 evaluated | −3.76 pp |
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 49.62%131 of 264 evaluated | 53.03%219 of 413 evaluated | −3.41 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 47.73%126 of 264 evaluated | 51.09%211 of 413 evaluated | −3.36 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 68.56%181 of 264 evaluated | 70.94%293 of 413 evaluated | −2.38 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 47.35%125 of 264 evaluated | 49.64%205 of 413 evaluated | −2.29 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 63.26%167 of 264 evaluated | 65.38%270 of 413 evaluated | −2.12 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 92.80%245 of 264 evaluated | 94.43%390 of 413 evaluated | −1.63 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 62.88%166 of 264 evaluated | 61.50%254 of 413 evaluated | +1.38 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 95.08%251 of 264 evaluated | 96.13%397 of 413 evaluated | −1.05 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 75.38%199 of 264 evaluated | 74.33%307 of 413 evaluated | +1.05 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 92.05%243 of 264 evaluated | 92.98%384 of 413 evaluated | −0.93 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 64.39%170 of 264 evaluated | 65.13%269 of 413 evaluated | −0.74 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 28.79%76 of 264 evaluated | 28.09%116 of 413 evaluated | +0.70 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 67.42%178 of 264 evaluated | 67.07%277 of 413 evaluated | +0.35 pp |
2026 Australia study baseline
The frozen national picture for the same checks
Rates from the 6,305-website 2026 Australia 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.
Emergency-services page not detected62.68%
BreadcrumbList structured data not detected64.30%
Insurance or payment page not detected68.96%
AggregateRating structured data not detected93.72%
Missing meta descriptions47.15%
Clear booking action not detected45.73%
Privacy-policy link not detected59.84%
Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detected47.20%
Images missing alternative text72.86%
Missing canonical tags31.10%
FAQPage structured data not detected91.25%
Unclear H1 structure60.84%
FAQ page not detected72.64%
XML sitemap not detected31.59%
Service or treatment structured data not detected93.39%
Limited useful content39.35%
Contact or inquiry form not detected65.15%
Explore the Adelaide market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Adelaide
- How good are dental practice websites in Adelaide?
- Across 264 audited Adelaide dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 72 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 Adelaide dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Adelaide dental websites are: “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (93% of evaluated sites); “FAQPage structured data not detected” (92% 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 Adelaide compare with the rest of South Australia?
- Adelaide's median score of 72 is 1 point above the South Australia-wide median of 71, based on 413 audited websites across South Australia.
- 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 Adelaide 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 South Australia 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 Adelaide 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.