VANITY FAIR engagement report
@VanityFair - 4.2M followers on X
Measured over 218 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 30 interactions against 4.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 218 original posts, its engagement rate beats 9% of 20,444 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 11K times each, and 0.27% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.266% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 8.7 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 17:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 218 posts sampled, 35% carry an image or video, 8% are part of a thread and 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 18K interactions, about 633x its own typical post.
Measured over 218 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
VANITY FAIR's engagement rate beats 9% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 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 19% 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 204,694 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.024%.
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 17:00 UTC, and Thursday 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 | 35% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 100% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 35% 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.
- 100% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 386 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
- Sep 25, 2026633x their median
Florence Pugh on Palestine: “It’s still happening. Babies are still dying. Mothers are still in pain. It’s really horrible to be watching such pain when so much of our lives just seem to be moving forward. I think that’s what I’ve found so difficult about social media as well: How can I say I’m having a really good time when literally one scroll up, I’m looking at a baby that’s motherless and fatherless?” Read the cover story: https://t.co/NYlpvQWDyB
- Sep 24, 2026352x their median
John Green on J.K. Rowling: “I think it’s important when we talk about her to talk about the fact that supporting her work now is directly supporting efforts at the erasure of trans people, and that makes me really sad. I think about all the trans friends I have who have Deathly Hallows tattoos,” Green continues, “and how heartbreaking it is for them to have someone who created something that matters so much to them really betray them.” Will he watch HBO’s upcoming 'Harry Potter' show? “No. No. No.” https://t.co/x9tPiuEGpV
- Aug 24, 2026346x 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, 2026267x 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
- Sep 9, 2026263x their median
In one of the most explosive moments of ‘Musk,’ the new documentary from filmmaker Alex Gibney, Elon Musk's ex-lover Ashley St. Clair suggests that Musk interfered with the 2024 election, recalling that he left the Mar-a-Lago celebration early and later told her he knew it would go in Trump’s favor. St. Clair says that Musk had a “degree of certainty” about the results before they came in that “I had never seen before.” And told him she didn’t want to know more because she didn’t want to be “deposed,” to which, according to St. Clair, Musk replied that she was wise https://t.co/AY9rCkmYUf
- Aug 20, 2026218x their median
Me for @VanityFair https://t.co/01aNHFsHqt
- Aug 9, 2026209x their median
Taylor Swift has apparently figured out a way to put Donald Trump on mute https://t.co/xWdqWFvrRY
- Oct 14, 2026149x their median
“La Bola Negra” co-director Javier Ambrossi defends casting straight actor Miguel Bernardeau in a gay role, stating he’s “not against” straight actors portraying LGBTQ+ characters: “I totally get why straight actors want to play gay roles. It’s their craft to portray people that are different from them. I’m not against that. The political statement is still there with the LGBTQ+ people on camera and behind the camera.” Bernardeau plays Rafael Rodríguez Rapún, a real-life activist and actor who was romantically involved with poet Federico García Lorca before his assassination in 1936. Ambrossi notes that his sexuality was a source of confusion: “Rafael was not an open gay man. He was confused — someone that was not able to say what he wanted.” For his part, Bernardeau says he felt no doubt whatsoever about playing a gay role: “I never thought about it like that, or cared what people would think about my sexuality.” Read the full cover story: https://t.co/CIq5zHJjBY
- Aug 17, 2026147x their median
I’m not eating those https://t.co/CEVwP4qmbr
- Sep 3, 2026143x their median
Gloria Steinem, the activist and trailblazing leader of the second-wave feminist movement, has died. She was 92 years old. Gloria Steinem never gave up the good fight. Despite publishing a dozen books and dedicating decades of her life to feminist advocacy, by the time she reached the age of 92, the feminist icon still feared leaving the Earth mid-battle. “I don’t want to die saying but—” Steinem told in an interview with Vanity Fair earlier this year. “We have the idea that our lives are planned in order to be worthwhile. And that may be true in some cases,” she says, “but I think our ability to respond to and learn from the unexpected is really much more likely to be helpful.” Read the full obituary: https://t.co/0jj443DQ72
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 30 interactions against 4.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 218 original posts, its engagement rate beats 9% of 20,444 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 11K times each, and 0.27% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.266% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 8.7 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 17:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 218 posts sampled, 35% carry an image or video, 8% are part of a thread and 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 18K interactions, about 633x 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 218 original posts from the last 30 days against 4,249,744 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 204,694 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 9% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the bottom 10% 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 17:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day, at roughly 8.67 posts per day across the measured window.