AHA -- American Heart Association

<-- back to competitive analysis

American Heart Association (heart.org)

Readability:
Score: 35 – Great; Could Benefit from Minor Edits

Breakdown:

Criteria Score Notes
Reading Level 4 (Good) Generally written at an 8th–10th grade level, clear for the general public.
Sentence Length 4 (Good) Sentences mostly range from 15–20 words; a few slightly longer.
Paragraph Density 4 (Good) Most paragraphs are brief (1–3 sentences); easy to scan.
Vocabulary 4 (Good) Mostly simple vocabulary; accessible to a wide audience.
Jargon Usage 4 (Good) Minimal jargon; terms like "AFib" are briefly explained.
Sentence Structure 5 (Excellent) Predominantly active voice; crisp and clear.
Scannability 5 (Excellent) Highly scannable: headings, CTAs, and bullet points aid navigation.
CTA Clarity 5 (Excellent) Calls to action (e.g., "Donate," "Find support") are clear and actionable.

Summary:
Heart.org performs reasonably well for an educated general audience. It offers a mix of technical and accessible vocabulary, and while sentence length and density are moderate, content is largely digestible. The tone is professional, and medical jargon is often defined, especially in patient-facing sections. The layout supports decent scannability, though CTA buttons could be clearer, more action-oriented, but using some great focused text for CTA.

Estimated Visitors: Approximately 3 million monthly visitors.
Estimated Membership Numbers: Over 33 million volunteers and supporters.

Matrix Charts

Main Site vs Journal Site

Explanation: The main site (heart.org) and the journal site (ahajournals.org) operate on separate domains with distinct branding and navigation. While there are links between them, the user experience is not seamless, indicating a loosely connected integration.

  • Landing Page for the full list of publications not even on the main site but on the Professional Heart.
  • Minimal top 5 teaser articles
    Explanation: The main site focuses on general public education, advocacy, and patient resources, whereas the journal site is dedicated to scientific publications. The content serves different audiences with minimal overlap.

Membership Experience

Explanation: The main site offers the majority of its content—including patient education, healthy living resources, donation opportunities, and volunteer programs—freely available to the public. While professional tools and journal access may require membership or payment, these are not part of the main site’s public-facing content.

  • Most of the content is on Proffesional.heart.org so much so the login doesn't show up until the user is on that subdomain.
  • Strong Brand holds the Subs together but the main nav is "Teased" on the main site but the entire nav swaps out when your in that experience.
    Explanation: The site includes information on getting involved through volunteering, donations, and becoming a heart health advocate. However, there’s less emphasis on structured onboarding for new members or supporters—details are available but not spotlighted or guided with a welcoming narrative. It’s informative but not highly personalized or welcoming.
  • There is a complete separate website for the professional where they ask people to become part of the org.

Brand Personality

Explanation: The AHA addresses both the general public and professionals, offering resources ranging from patient education to scientific research, reflecting a broad inclusivity.​ The content is designed to be accessible and relevant to a broad audience, including the general public, patients, and caregivers, without requiring specialized medical knowledge.
Explanation: The tone across AHA's platforms is professional yet accessible, aiming to engage a wide audience without compromising on scientific integrity.

Strategic Emphasis on Organizational Initiatives

Radar Chart Scores:

  • Member Networking Opportunities: ★★☆☆☆

  • Donations & Philanthropy: ★★★★★

  • Events: ★★☆☆☆

  • Scientific Publications / Latest Science: ★☆☆☆☆

  • Practice Support Resources: ★★★☆☆

  • Patient-Facing Tools & Content: ★★★★★

  • Education: ★★☆☆☆

  • Advocacy: ★☆☆☆☆
    Rationale:

  • Membership & Networking Opportunities: Minimal presence on heart.org. Professional networking largely lives off-site or in conference contexts.

  • Donations & Philanthropy: Highly visible and emphasized, with multiple calls to donate, fundraise, or give in honor of someone.

  • Events: Community events like Heart Walks and Go Red for Women are promoted, but less focus on large-scale scientific events or purchasable events.

  • Scientific Publications / Latest Science: Virtually absent from the main site; most science communication is generalized for lay audiences.

  • Practice Support Resources: Some tools for CPR, emergency response, and guidelines for laypersons exist, but not robust clinical tools unless you know where you are going and then you can find an equivalent to NCDR with Get with the Guideline Registry.

  • Patient-Facing Tools & Content: Heart.org excels in this category, offering rich educational content, risk assessments, and interactive tools.

  • Education: Strong emphasis on public education, and awareness campaigns But limited training courses (like CPR), and no purchasable continuing education or modules for medical professionals. All reference to continuing learning is buried on the main site and is mostly hosted on its E-learning Sub Domain. elearn.heart.org

  • Advocacy: It is on the site but it is very hard to find but does exist.

Additional Notes

  • Art Direction strong visual branding with single color usage the red and white. High usage of photos because of their public facing mission that humanizes the site.
    • Extra Care on all pages to reserve "button" for limited usage because of the single color branding.
    • Red in the UI is dropped in tone in the UI so it has proper contrast.
  • Structure of the content is spread across multiple sites where the main site is much more Advocacy, Public Education with pass offs to the sister sites. Clear focus of audience and cleaning away distractions.
  • Cleanliness is a focus of all pages.
    • Dates only show up when referencing things that are "latest"
    • Listed items are almost always reserved to less then 5 items.
    • Sub Domain-ing with altering Context and Main Nav
      • CPR.heart.org
      • Learn.heart.org
      • Professional.heart.org
      • ....
UX Warning

The subduing is markable, interesting and allows for greater division of audience and improves focus, but it does impede discoverability, and only because this research has forced deep diving into their content. Did I discover some of the nuanced areas. It is very easy as an audience member or user to be confused about why the main is altering because the branding is so locked up the edges between the main site and CPR, for example, are minimal and a user might just be shocked that they may NAV item that they were utilizing disappears.