aso · scoring-criteria

ASO Scoring Criteria

Score each dimension 0-10 using the rubrics below.
Apply brand maturity tier adjustments from Phase 1.5 of the main skill.

Brand Maturity Adjustments (apply to all dimensions)

Before scoring, determine the app's tier: Dominant, Established, or Challenger.

Dominant apps (Instagram, Uber, Spotify, WhatsApp, Netflix):

Brand-only titles score 8+ (the brand IS the keyword)
Lifestyle/brand screenshots score same as captioned UI screenshots
Generic What's New at weekly+ cadence scores 8+
Missing in-app events for utility apps is not a penalty
Description scored on conversion quality only, not keyword presence
Localization scored relative to actual market footprint
Missing preview video is acceptable if brand awareness is near-universal

Established apps (Duolingo, Strava, Notion, Calm, Cash App):

Brand-first titles with 1-2 keywords score normally
Strategic description/visual choices get benefit of the doubt
All other dimensions scored normally

Challenger apps (most apps):

Scored strictly against textbook ASO — every character and feature matters

Key principle: Before docking points, ask: "Is this a mistake or a data-informed
choice by a team with more information than I have?"

1. Title & Subtitle (Weight: 20%)

Challenger rubric:

Score	Criteria
9-10	Brand + high-value keyword in title, complementary keywords in subtitle, no word repetition across fields, near max character usage, instantly communicates app purpose
7-8	Good keyword presence, minor character waste (5+ unused chars), clear purpose
5-6	Has keywords but poor placement, some repetition between fields, purpose somewhat clear
3-4	Title is brand-only or generic, subtitle missing or weak, poor character usage
1-2	No keyword strategy, title doesn't communicate purpose, major character waste
0	Cannot assess (data unavailable)

Dominant/Established adjustment: Brand-only titles (e.g., "Instagram") are
valid if the brand has high search volume. Score 8+ for Dominant apps where
brand recognition eliminates the need for generic keywords. Evaluate whether
unused characters represent waste or intentional simplicity.

Check for:

Characters used vs limit (title: 30, subtitle/short desc: 30/80). "Near max" = within 3 chars of the limit (27+/30, 77+/80)
Primary keyword in title
Keyword duplication between title and subtitle
Whether app purpose is immediately clear
Unnecessary words (articles, prepositions) consuming space
Special characters or claims ("#1", "best") that risk rejection (Apple)

2. Description (Weight: 15%)

Apple App Store

Score	Criteria
9-10	First 3 lines hook with clear value prop, structured with features/benefits/social proof/CTA, promotional text actively used, compelling and scannable
7-8	Good opening, decent structure, could improve scannability or CTA
5-6	Generic opening ("Welcome to..."), some structure, missing CTA or social proof
3-4	Wall of text, no clear value prop above fold, no promotional text
1-2	Minimal or boilerplate description, no effort
0	Cannot assess

Google Play

Score	Criteria
9-10	Keywords in first 3 sentences, 2-3% natural density throughout, HTML formatting used, structured sections, strong CTA, keywords feel natural
7-8	Good keyword presence, some structure, density slightly off (1-2% or 3-4%)
5-6	Keywords present but sparse (<1%) or stuffed (>5%), weak structure
3-4	No keyword strategy visible, poor formatting, wall of text
1-2	Minimal description, no keywords, no structure
0	Cannot assess

Check for:

First 3 lines quality (visible before "Read More")
Feature-benefit framing (not just feature lists)
Social proof (downloads, awards, press mentions)
Call to action
Keyword density (Google Play only - count target keywords / total words)
HTML formatting usage (Google Play)
Promotional text presence and quality (Apple)

3. Visual Assets (Weight: 25%)

Score	Criteria
9-10	8-10 screenshots with clear messaging/captions, preview video present, screenshots tell a story in sequence, each communicates one benefit, icon is distinctive and memorable
7-8	6-7 screenshots with captions, good icon, no video OR good video but some screenshot messaging unclear
5-6	5+ screenshots but weak/no captions, basic icon, no video, screenshots are UI dumps
3-4	3-4 screenshots, no captions, generic icon, no storytelling
1-2	Fewer than 3 screenshots, or screenshots are raw unedited UI, poor icon
0	Cannot assess

Check for:

Screenshot count (minimum 5, ideal 8-10)
Caption/overlay text on screenshots (one message per screen, 5-7 words max)
First 3 screenshots (highest conversion impact on Apple)
Preview video presence and quality
Icon distinctiveness (no text in icon, bold shapes, stands out)
Feature graphic presence (Google Play - mandatory for featured placements)
Screenshot storytelling flow (do they tell a coherent story?)
Localized visual assets (for non-English markets)
Caption keywords (Apple - indexed since June 2025)

4. Ratings & Reviews (Weight: 20%)

Score	Criteria
9-10	4.5+ stars, 10K+ ratings, recent reviews positive, developer responds to negatives, steady review flow
7-8	4.0-4.4 stars, 1K+ ratings, mostly positive recent reviews, some developer responses
5-6	3.5-3.9 stars, 500+ ratings, mixed recent reviews, no developer responses
3-4	3.0-3.4 stars, <500 ratings, negative themes in recent reviews
1-2	Below 3.0 stars, few ratings, no developer engagement, visible complaints
0	No ratings yet or cannot assess

Check for:

Average rating (target: 4.0+ minimum, 4.5+ ideal)
Total rating count
Recent review sentiment (last 5-10 visible reviews)
Common complaint themes (bugs, crashes, pricing, UX)
Developer response presence and quality
Rating trend (improving or declining, if visible)
Review recency (fresh reviews signal active user base)

5. Metadata & Freshness (Weight: 10%)

Score	Criteria
9-10	Updated within last month, 10+ localizations, optimal category choice, in-app events/LiveOps active, data safety complete
7-8	Updated within 2 months, 5+ localizations, good category, data safety present
5-6	Updated within 3 months, 2-4 localizations, acceptable category
3-4	Updated 3-6 months ago, 1-2 localizations, possibly wrong category
1-2	Not updated in 6+ months, single language, poor category choice
0	Cannot assess

Check for:

Last update date and recency
Number of supported languages/localizations
Category selection (is it the best fit? less competitive alternative?)
In-app events (Apple) or promotional content (Google) presence
Data safety / privacy nutrition label completeness
Age rating appropriateness
Version history quality (do release notes communicate value?)
What's New text quality

6. Conversion Signals (Weight: 10%)

Score	Criteria
9-10	Clear value before download, transparent pricing/IAP, social proof visible (press, awards), download range suggests strong traction, developer credibility strong
7-8	Good value communication, pricing clear, some social proof
5-6	Value prop exists but weak, pricing unclear or IAP heavy, limited social proof
3-4	Unclear what user gets, confusing pricing, no social proof, low downloads visible
1-2	No value communication, suspicious pricing, app looks abandoned
0	Cannot assess

Check for:

Price transparency (free, freemium, paid - is it clear?)
In-app purchase list quality (do IAP names communicate value?)
Download range (Google Play - 10K+, 100K+, 1M+ signals trust)
Developer name/brand recognition
"Editors' Choice" or featured badges
Press mentions or awards in description
Related apps from same developer (portfolio trust signal)
Privacy practices transparency

Calculating Final Score

Final Score = (Title * 0.20) + (Description * 0.15) + (Visuals * 0.25)
            + (Ratings * 0.20) + (Metadata * 0.10) + (Conversion * 0.10)

Scale to 100: Final Score * 10

Example: Title: 7, Description: 6, Visuals: 8, Ratings: 9, Metadata: 5, Conversion: 7

(7 * 0.20) + (6 * 0.15) + (8 * 0.25) + (9 * 0.20) + (5 * 0.10) + (7 * 0.10)
= 1.4 + 0.9 + 2.0 + 1.8 + 0.5 + 0.7
= 7.3 → 73/100 → Grade: B