Back to @techreview's profile

MIT Technology Review engagement report

@techreview - 1.2M followers on X

Measured over 64 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.

Engagement

Bottom quarter for its size
Per follower
0.001%
of 1.2M followers
Per impression
0.175%
6.6K views on a typical post
Reach
0.57%
of its followers see a post
Typical post
12
interactions (median)
Saved
0.03%
2 bookmarks on a typical post
Posting rate
2.13/day
active 67% of days
Peak time
12:00 UTC
Monday

A typical post picks up 12 interactions against 1.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 64 original posts, its engagement rate beats 12% 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 6.6K times each, and 0.175% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.566% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 67% of days. Most posts go out around 12:00 UTC, and Monday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 64 posts sampled, 89% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 330 interactions, about 28x its own typical post.

Measured over 64 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.

Compared with accounts its own size

MIT Technology Review's engagement rate beats 12% 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 13% 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%, MIT Technology Review 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%.

p100.004%
p250.024%
p50 (median)0.143%
p750.677%
p902.55%
p9982.4%
Engagement rate as a share of followers, across the 204,694 accounts we have scanned enough to measure. The axis is logarithmic, because the top and bottom of this population are about 22,880 times apart and a linear axis would flatten everything below the median into a single point.
Show the percentile table
Engagement rate percentiles
PercentileEngagement rate
10th percentile0.004%
25th percentile0.024%
50th percentile0.143%
75th percentile0.677%
90th percentile2.55%
99th percentile82.4%

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 12:00 UTC, and Monday 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.

Engagement by hour posted, UTCTwenty-four bars, one per UTC hour. Each bar shows how posts published in that hour compare with their own authors' median engagement. Bars above the centre line ran higher than the median, bars below ran lower. A marker flags Busiest hour: 12:00 UTC.
0003060912151821
Above the authors' own mediansBelowScale: plus or minus 111%Busiest hour: 12:00 UTC
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
Engagement by hour posted, UTC
Hour (UTC)Vs author medianPosts
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 UTC0%116K
22:00 UTC-2%100K
23:00 UTC-1%90K
Engagement by day of weekSeven bars, one per weekday, Sunday first. Each bar shows how posts published on that day compare with their own authors' median engagement. Bars above the centre line ran higher than the median, bars below ran lower. A marker flags Busiest day: Monday.
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
Above the authors' own mediansBelowScale: plus or minus 111%Busiest day: Monday
Show engagement by day of week as a table
Engagement by day of week
DayVs author medianPosts
Sunday+5%393K
Monday+1%483K
Tuesday-2%520K
Wednesday-3%472K
Thursday-2%430K
Friday-3%447K
Saturday+2%393K
See what moves engagement across the whole catalogWhat counts as a good engagement rate at this size

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.

This account's posting mix compared with catalog-wide effects
FormatThis accountCatalog effect95% intervalAccounts behind it
Image or video0% of posts+111%+108% to +115%34K
Outbound link89% of posts-41%-42% to -40%32K
Typical length--3%-3% to -2%54K
  • 0% 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.
  • 89% 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 130 characters, which falls in the 80 - 180 characters band. Across the catalog, posts of 80 to 180 characters run 3% below 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

  • Nov 19, 202428x their median

    We're on those other social media platforms, too. 🟦☁️: https://t.co/ONnj2nlZi6 🧵: https://t.co/N3ICJne0vl

    941507313112K viewsView on X
  • Sep 18, 20269.4x their median

    You had a lot of questions about the recent claims that humanity is facing an existential risk from AI. We had a go at answering a few. https://t.co/M0GuRuSML5

    732711215K viewsView on X
  • Aug 26, 20268.5x their median

    In a new interview, the billionaire philanthropist sounds an alarm on the urgency of getting our AI policies in order. https://t.co/IGGFjUTt7p

    72197418K viewsView on X
  • Sep 1, 20267.1x their median

    The Fermi Explorer Mission plans to launch a spacecraft to our nearest star by the end of 2029, using a trajectory discovered by AI. https://t.co/drOVo0jg2e

    55224419K viewsView on X
  • Aug 10, 20266.4x their median

    AI agents that can model the human process of research will accelerate discoveries in science. https://t.co/L03TmwRwBu

    57712121K viewsView on X
  • Oct 19, 20264.9x their median

    An exclusive interview with Nick Cammarata, the researcher whose 26,000-word viral blog post has AI safety folks celebrating. https://t.co/Kg13PtTG5V

    4583313K viewsView on X
  • Aug 5, 20264.5x their median

    The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, set to launch at the end of August, is uniquely well-placed to help us spot any dangerous rocks heading our way. https://t.co/nEu6t22TEi

    42111018K viewsView on X
  • Sep 22, 20263.8x their median

    Plus: 22 nations have called for a new global body to oversee AI. https://t.co/HPkYcHP2S7

    328519.0K viewsView on X
  • Aug 18, 20263.3x their median

    Human spaceflight has been racking up new milestones. But we’re still grappling with a fundamental question: Why go in the first place? https://t.co/Le6E559BPJ

    27310012K viewsView on X
  • Sep 18, 20263.3x their median

    Plus: Microsoft and OpenAI workers say AI is destroying the web. https://t.co/PJ0yz1vjtK

    2594113K viewsView on X

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 12 interactions against 1.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 64 original posts, its engagement rate beats 12% 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 6.6K times each, and 0.175% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.566% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.1 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 67% of days. Most posts go out around 12:00 UTC, and Monday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 64 posts sampled, 89% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 330 interactions, about 28x its own typical post.

What is MIT Technology Review's engagement rate on X?
MIT Technology Review (@techreview) has an engagement rate of 0.001%, based on the median interactions across 64 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,161,354 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
Is that a good engagement rate?
At 0.001%, MIT Technology Review 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 @techreview have real engagement?
Its engagement rate beats 12% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 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 @techreview post?
Most posts go out around 12:00 UTC, and Monday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.13 posts per day across the measured window.

Keep going