Peter Schiff engagement report
@PeterSchiff - 1.8M followers on X
Measured over 151 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 1.5K interactions against 1.8M followers, an engagement rate of 0.087%. Measured over 151 original posts, its engagement rate beats 69% of 20,182 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 84K times each, and 1.84% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.72% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 151 posts sampled, 22% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 19K interactions, about 13x its own typical post.
Measured over 151 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Peter Schiff's engagement rate beats 69% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,182 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 65% 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 0.087%, Peter Schiff sits above the 25th percentile of the 204,491 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the below the median band, which runs 0.024% to 0.143%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.677% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
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 14:00 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.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 4% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 22% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 4% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 22% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 401 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 21, 202613x their median
This morning Trump proudly announced a deal to lower beef prices by reducing quotas and tariffs on imported beef. But that's also an admission that tariffs increased prices paid by American consumers. If removing tariffs lowers prices, then imposing them must have raised prices.
- Aug 14, 202612x their median
I noticed Wikipedia is asking for donations. Never donate anything to Wikipedia. The world would be a better place if Wikipedia didn't exist. It's a highly biased propaganda arm of the radical left, spreading disinformation and fake news to advance a far-left political agenda.
- Oct 9, 202612x their median
Today Trump announced a deal to supply Russian diesel to U.S. and global markets. Just three weeks ago, he signed a law targeting major buyers of Russian oil and gas with tariffs of up to 100%. The goal was to cut off funding for Putin’s war against Ukraine. So what changed?
- Sep 26, 20268.8x their median
The S&P 500 is 0.7% below a record high, yet 430 of those stocks are 21.7% below their highs. That means on average 86% of the stocks are in a bear market. Breadth has only been this bad twice, in January 1973 and in 1999/2000. On both occasions, the S&P then crashed nearly 50%
- Sep 22, 20268.6x their median
Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s when millions of immigrants flooded our shores, no paperwork was required to immigrate. No passports, visas, or work permits. Anyone who could afford a ticket could board a ship, arrive in America, answer a few basic questions, and be on their way. They could stay as long as they wanted, work wherever they wanted, buy property, start businesses, and basically do anything any American citizen could do. In fact, in most states, they could legally vote in local, state, and even national elections, subject to the same poll tax, literacy test, or other qualifications required of American citizens. If they wanted to naturalize, they just needed to register their intent and were given seven years to complete the paperwork necessary to become American citizens, which millions of immigrants were proud to do. Things began to change in the 1930s with the advent of social security numbers, and then more so with the Alien Registration Act of 1940, signed into law as a WWII security measure. When the war ended, instead of being repealed, in 1946 it evolved into what we now call Green Cards. In effect, we had completely open borders and the country thrived. In fact, during the decades we now call the Gilded Age—the high-growth period that Donald Trump claims he wants to emulate—our borders were wide open. The reason this worked so well is that we had no welfare state. People came to America for freedom and opportunity only. They came to contribute to our economy, not live off it. They did not drain our resources; they added to them. The lesson is that immigration is not the problem. The problem is the welfare state. Shut off that magnet and America will no longer attract people looking for free stuff. In fact, we need to turn off that magnet for everyone, so those who are looking for free stuff will leave to seek it out someplace else.
- Aug 20, 20267.8x their median
Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said the free market is mispricing long-term bond yields. So he wants to use the superior judgment and power of central government planners to correct the mistakes of capitalism. Good thing we didn't elect a Democratic Socialist president.
- Sep 10, 20267.0x their median
Today Trump tried to buy the midterms by offering all voters a $5,000 bribe in exchange for their votes, provided they spend the cash in the U.S. Since the Fed will have to print the money, the result would be massive inflation, well in excess of anything experienced under Biden.
- Oct 17, 20266.4x their median
Letting everyone vote was a deadly mistake… Many of the Founding Fathers warned against mass democracy. The uninformed masses and hordes of migrants simply vote for more benefits from the state. Several Western nations are now headed toward fiscal collapse, led by France.
- Oct 16, 20266.2x their median
Oil is above $100. The main reason it's not closer to $150 is all the oil being released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That will stop after the midterms. When it becomes obvious that inflation will outpace Fed rate hikes, the dollar will fall, sending oil prices soaring.
- Oct 19, 20266.0x their median
My electricity bill for my primary residence was 24% higher in Oct. 2026 than it was in Oct. 2025. It's the same house with all the same appliances. This isn't what happens in an economy where the inflation rate is anywhere near 2%. That's just one bill. They're all going way up.
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 Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 1.5K interactions against 1.8M followers, an engagement rate of 0.087%. Measured over 151 original posts, its engagement rate beats 69% of 20,182 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 84K times each, and 1.84% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.72% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 151 posts sampled, 22% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 19K interactions, about 13x its own typical post.
- What is Peter Schiff's engagement rate on X?
- Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) has an engagement rate of 0.087%, based on the median interactions across 151 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,771,101 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.087%, Peter Schiff sits above the 25th percentile of the 204,491 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 @PeterSchiff have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 69% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,182 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range 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 @PeterSchiff post?
- Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 7.33 posts per day across the measured window.