Scientific American engagement report

Compared with accounts its own size

Scientific American's engagement rate beats 20% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,739 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 26% 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%, Scientific American sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,378 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.012%.

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 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday 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.

Reading these numbers

A typical post picks up 51 interactions against 4.3M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 129 original posts, its engagement rate beats 20% of 3,739 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 18K times each, and 0.284% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.423% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 4.4 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 67% of days. Most posts go out around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 129 posts sampled, 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 1.7K interactions, about 33x its own typical post.

What is Scientific American's engagement rate on X?

Scientific American (@sciam) has an engagement rate of 0.001%, based on the median interactions across 129 original posts from the last 30 days against 4,251,979 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.

Is that a good engagement rate?

At 0.001%, Scientific American sits below the 10th percentile of the 36,378 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 @sciam have real engagement?

Its engagement rate beats 20% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (3,739 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 @sciam post?

Most posts go out around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 4.4 posts per day across the measured window.