VANITY FAIR engagement report
@VanityFair - 4.3M followers on X
Measured over 148 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on August 31, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 38 interactions against 4.3M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 148 original posts, its engagement rate beats 17% of 3,758 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 21K times each, and 0.182% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.498% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 148 posts sampled, 37% carry an image or video, 7% are part of a thread and 97% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 9.7K interactions, about 255x its own typical post.
Measured over 148 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on August 31, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
VANITY FAIR's engagement rate beats 17% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,758 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 18% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.001%, VANITY FAIR sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,521 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.012%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.002% |
| 25th percentile | 0.012% |
| 50th percentile | 0.08% |
| 75th percentile | 0.434% |
| 90th percentile | 2.10% |
| 99th percentile | 160.7% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 50K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 51K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 50K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 53K |
| 04:00 UTC | -6% | 43K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 42K |
| 06:00 UTC | -4% | 48K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 52K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 60K |
| 09:00 UTC | -3% | 69K |
| 10:00 UTC | -2% | 72K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 78K |
| 12:00 UTC | -2% | 86K |
| 13:00 UTC | -2% | 94K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 97K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 97K |
| 17:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 18:00 UTC | -1% | 84K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 79K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 74K |
| 21:00 UTC | -1% | 66K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 57K |
| 23:00 UTC | -2% | 51K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +4% | 230K |
| Monday | 0% | 286K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 276K |
| Wednesday | -1% | 251K |
| Thursday | -1% | 244K |
| Friday | -3% | 252K |
| Saturday | +3% | 227K |
Best tweets
- Aug 24, 2026255x their median
Nine years ago, Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson were sitting on a porch while vacationing together in Greece with their families. Their kids were sharing pictures of their fathers from when they were younger, amazed at how similar the two actors looked. “Everyone’s going, ‘Man, you two: Those mannerisms are the same, you look alike. It’s like you're brothers!’” remembers McConaughey. Everyone laughed, and then McConaughey’s mother, in a perfectly timed comedic bit, turns to Harrelson and says, “Oh, I knew your father.” But it wasn’t a joke. McConaughey’s mother revealed for the first time that she had known (yes, in the Biblical sense) Harrelson’s father before McConaughey was born. They did the math, and realized there was a possibility that the actors were not only best buddies, but half brothers. “Woody believed it from the get-go, and I don’t believe it from the get-go,” McConaughey tells Vanity Fair. The possibility has become one of Hollywood’s most fascinating rumors—and now it’s the inspiration for Apple TV’s new comedy series, ‘Brothers.’ McConaughey and Harrelson play fictionalized versions of themselves, as they grapple with a decades-old secret that’s been unearthed. McConaughey and Harrelson are quick to emphasize that while the characters have their names, the series is very much a fictionalized version of their story. But still, the friendship captured onscreen is true to life, and an interesting peek into one of Hollywood’s most enduring bromances. “They just love each other,” says ‘Brothers’ showrunner Lee Eisenberg. “They just really enjoy one another like brothers.” See the exclusive First Look from Vanity Fair’s @Beccamford: https://t.co/vTshwVkGlD
- Aug 13, 2026197x their median
Nicole Kidman says she was made an AMC A-Lister for life following her viral ad for the theater chain. (via: @VanityFair) https://t.co/nnQjiAefWz
- Aug 20, 2026161x their median
Me for @VanityFair https://t.co/01aNHFsHqt
- Aug 9, 2026154x their median
Taylor Swift has apparently figured out a way to put Donald Trump on mute https://t.co/xWdqWFvrRY
- Aug 17, 2026100x their median
I’m not eating those https://t.co/CEVwP4qmbr
- Aug 25, 202669x their median
First Look: 'The Gilded Age' Season Four Spells Trouble for the Russells https://t.co/SaB7QZi34H https://t.co/w0m9z5bNYk
- Aug 25, 202652x their median
For the first time this decade, Vanity Fair presents a Best Dressed List. This year’s list honors those who do more than wear clothes well or live their lives in head-to-toe ensembles handed to them by eager PR apparatchiks. Our honorees embody an idea: They are devout dressers whose appetite for beauty and self-invention is as voracious as their idiosyncratic taste. They are originators and inspirations—they are, we could say, always on the mood board. These 10 honorees and those in the categories that accompany them were selected by the staff of Vanity Fair from hundreds of suggestions, following weeks of deliberation. See more on the changing fashions in this millennium’s Roaring Twenties—and who we think is nailing it: https://t.co/obTn67nC7A #VFBestDressed
- Aug 26, 202645x their median
Tim Curry, who played the eccentric, cross-dressing mad scientist Dr. Frank-N-Furter in the cult classic film ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show,’ has died. He was 80 years old. Curry originated the iconic role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter in the original production staged at London’s Royal Court Theatre. He stayed with the role as it transferred to Broadway and then was ultimately adapted into a feature film also starring Susan Sarandon and Barry Bostwick. That film would become a cult sensation, sparking countless call-and-response heavy midnight showings thanks to its raucous numbers like “Time Warp,” “Touch-a-Touch-a-Touch-a-Touch Me” and “Sweet Transvestite,” indelibly performed by Curry. Beyond his extensive film roles, Curry had an extensive stage career, earning three Tony nominations for originating the role of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1981’s ‘Amadeus,’ playing Alan Swann in the musical ‘My Favorite Year,’ and for starring as King Arthur in the smash hit musical ‘Monty Python’s Spamalot.’ Read the full obituary: https://t.co/HzkycktJvB
- Aug 10, 202643x their median
How 'The Midnight Boys' Became Your Favorite Nerd’s Favorite Podcast https://t.co/HMsVFQLz9y
- Aug 25, 202620x their median
Exclusive First Look: Danny Boyle Didn’t Want to Make Rupert Murdoch a Villain in ‘Ink’ https://t.co/sGVpV6h3UZ https://t.co/Lv6YwvPik7
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell X accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for X accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 38 interactions against 4.3M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 148 original posts, its engagement rate beats 17% of 3,758 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 21K times each, and 0.182% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.498% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 148 posts sampled, 37% carry an image or video, 7% are part of a thread and 97% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 9.7K interactions, about 255x its own typical post.
- What is VANITY FAIR's engagement rate on X?
- VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) has an engagement rate of 0.001%, based on the median interactions across 148 original posts from the last 30 days against 4,252,772 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.001%, VANITY FAIR sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,521 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @VanityFair have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 17% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,758 accounts), which puts it in the bottom quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @VanityFair post?
- Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is its busiest day, at roughly 7.1 posts per day across the measured window.