Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated
100 Social Media Engagement Statistics for 2026
If your engagement benchmark has no denominator, it can send your strategy in the wrong direction. This page separates follower-based rates, reach-based rates, mean counts and median counts so you can compare like with like.
The dated observations below come from the original research producers. Historical series remain labelled by observation year; a report published recently does not turn older data into current performance. Start with the takeaways, then use the section closest to your platform and objective.
Headline figures
- LinkedIn document posts had a median engagement rate of 21.77% in Buffer's 2025 baseline through 3 December. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Instagram carousel posts had a median engagement rate of 6.90% in Buffer's 2025 baseline through 3 December. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- TikTok video posts had a median engagement rate of 3.39% in Buffer's 2025 baseline through 3 December. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Facebook posts averaged 180.39 interactions in Metricool's 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- TikTok posts averaged 944.90 interactions in Metricool's 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Bluesky video posts averaged 23.02 interactions in Metricool's 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Facebook posts recorded a mean of 16.95 comments in Metricool's 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Facebook posts recorded a mean of 35.18 link clicks in Metricool's 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Instagram's follower-based median engagement rate was 0.3% in the 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- X's follower-based median engagement rate was 0.03% in the 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- TikTok's follower-based median engagement rate was 2.01% in the 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 42% higher engagement on Threads in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
How many interactions does a typical post receive?
A mean is useful for planning aggregate activity, but it can be pulled upward by unusually successful posts. Metricool's report-labelled periods are retained here: the newer sample was published before the end of its calendar year.
How do Facebook, LinkedIn and Pinterest averages compare?
- Facebook posts averaged 114.97 interactions in the 2024-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- LinkedIn posts averaged 16.60 interactions in the 2024-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- LinkedIn posts averaged 14.16 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Pinterest posts averaged 47.64 interactions in the 2024-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Pinterest posts averaged 24.59 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
The platforms move in different directions within Metricool's report. These are mean interactions per post, not median engagement percentages, so they should not be substituted for the follower-based benchmarks above. Facebook's newer observation is in the takeaways. A cross-platform mean also reflects the participating account mix and the available interaction fields. For an internal target, retain the same account set and calculation method across reporting periods.
What do TikTok, X, Threads and Bluesky averages show?
- TikTok posts averaged 1,380.30 interactions in the 2024-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- X posts averaged 37.83 interactions in the 2024-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- X posts averaged 42.71 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Threads posts averaged 24.81 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Bluesky posts averaged 16.38 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
TikTok's scale of recorded interactions differs substantially from the newer text-oriented networks. That gap describes this connected-account sample, instead of a guaranteed advantage for a particular brand or publishing budget. The newer TikTok observation is in the takeaways. Account size and post distribution can drive the average as well as creative quality. Separate those effects before claiming that a platform change improved engagement.
Which Bluesky formats attracted more mean interactions?
- Bluesky text posts averaged 19.90 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Bluesky images posts averaged 9.96 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
- Bluesky carousels posts averaged 7.01 interactions in the 2025-labelled sample. (Metricool, Dec 2025)
Text sits above still-image and carousel posts in Metricool's Bluesky format comparison. The video observation appears in the takeaways; together, the figures provide a format-testing hypothesis instead of an instruction to abandon other creative formats. The metric is the arithmetic mean of interactions per post in the report-labelled sample. It does not divide by reach or followers, and it does not establish why audiences responded differently. A hands-on comparison should hold topic, account and measurement window as stable as possible. Review the distribution as well as the average: a few unusually active conversations can change the result without changing the experience of a typical post.
Which post formats earn higher engagement rates?
There is no universal winning format across these platforms. Buffer's detailed methodology uses reach, or the closest available impression or view equivalent, instead of Quid/Rival IQ's follower denominator; the rate sets should remain separate. The baseline runs through 3 December 2025.
Which LinkedIn and Threads formats performed best?
- LinkedIn video posts recorded a median rate of 7.35% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- LinkedIn image posts recorded a median rate of 6.52% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- LinkedIn link posts recorded a median rate of 3.81% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- LinkedIn text posts recorded a median rate of 3.18% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Threads video posts recorded a median rate of 5.55% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Threads image posts recorded a median rate of 4.55% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Threads text posts recorded a median rate of 2.79% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Threads link posts recorded a median rate of 2.34% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
LinkedIn documents lead Buffer's format comparison, while Threads video leads its own set. The document result is in the takeaways; the remaining medians show how sharply the ordering depends on platform. These rates describe posts published through Buffer in its stated baseline window.
How do Instagram and Facebook formats compare?
- Instagram single-image posts recorded a median rate of 4.44% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Instagram Reels had a median rate of 3.31% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Facebook image posts recorded a median rate of 5.20% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Facebook video posts recorded a median rate of 4.84% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Facebook text posts recorded a median rate of 4.76% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Facebook link posts recorded a median rate of 4.43% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
Instagram's carousel result appears in the takeaways, while the other format medians below give context. Facebook's format spread is comparatively narrow in this sample, arguing against choosing a format solely from a headline ranking. A median identifies the middle post in the measured distribution. It does not mean every post achieved that rate, and the comparison does not randomly assign the same creative idea to different formats. Evaluate a format against its production cost and the response you need.
Do X, TikTok and Pinterest reward the same format?
- X text posts recorded a median rate of 3.56% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- X image posts recorded a median rate of 3.40% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- X video posts recorded a median rate of 2.96% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- X link posts recorded a median rate of 2.25% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- TikTok image posts recorded a median rate of 1.92% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Pinterest video posts recorded a median rate of 5.75% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Pinterest image posts recorded a median rate of 3.15% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
No. X's text posts lead its displayed format set, whereas the visual platforms have different patterns. The TikTok video benchmark is already in the takeaways and should be read alongside its image comparison. These are within-platform creative benchmarks, not a prediction that copying one asset across networks will produce equivalent engagement.
What can median interaction counts tell you?
Counts answer a different question from engagement rates. Buffer reports raw interactions for Bluesky and Mastodon, and views for YouTube, so these measures should remain labelled instead of being forced into a single platform ranking.
What is the median interaction count on Bluesky?
- Bluesky video posts generated a median of 5 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Bluesky image posts generated a median of 4 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Bluesky link posts generated a median of 3 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Bluesky text posts generated a median of 3 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
Video had the highest median interaction count among the Bluesky formats shown in Buffer's baseline. The figures below use the middle post in each format group, which limits the influence of unusually viral content. These counts do not account for differences in account size or how many people saw each post. They are useful for setting a descriptive starting point when evaluating similar accounts. Metricool's earlier Bluesky section uses means from a different customer sample, so its larger figures do not contradict these medians. A valid comparison needs the same statistic, audience definition and collection window.
How did Mastodon formats compare?
- Mastodon image posts generated a median of 3 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Mastodon video posts generated a median of 3 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Mastodon link posts generated a median of 2 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Mastodon text posts generated a median of 2 interactions per post in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
Image and video posts shared the higher median count in Buffer's Mastodon comparison. Text and link posts shared the lower count, leaving ties that should not be turned into a false ranking. The baseline covers Buffer-published posts instead of every Mastodon server or user. A count reflects the interactions recorded for those posts; it cannot establish the reach available to a new account. Server communities, audience relationships and content topics may differ from the sample. Use the benchmark to frame an experiment, while judging success against a stable set of your own posts and the conversations that follow them.
Why are YouTube views separate from engagement?
- YouTube videos published through Buffer received a median of 433 views in the 2025 baseline through 3 December. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
A YouTube view measures exposure to a video, not the same behavior as a like, reply or share. Buffer's reported median therefore belongs in a separate comparison, even though it appears in the same research report. The number describes the middle video in Buffer's baseline, not the total audience of an average channel. It also cannot establish watch time, completion, subscriber growth or commercial intent. A useful video report should keep these concepts separate and select the metric that matches the objective. When comparing platforms, do not relabel a view count as an interaction count merely to fill a common column. The available evidence supports a platform-specific observation, not a universal social engagement score.
How do replies and posting cadence relate to engagement?
Publishing is only part of the work: replying can be linked to a different response pattern. Buffer's reply analysis is observational, while Quid/Rival IQ's cadence figures describe sampled brand behavior; neither establishes a guaranteed optimal schedule.
Are creator replies linked to stronger engagement?
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 30% higher engagement on LinkedIn in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 21% higher engagement on Instagram in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 9.5% higher reactions on Facebook in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
Buffer found positive within-account associations between replying and engagement on the platforms below. The Threads result appears in the takeaways; the Facebook result specifically measures reactions, which should not be relabelled as all engagement. These comparisons reduce some differences between accounts, but they are not randomized experiments. A post that already attracts attention may be more likely to receive a creator reply. The exact reply-study observation window is not disclosed in the report. Treat the results as a reason to test thoughtful participation, not as a promised percentage lift from replying mechanically.
How do smaller reply effects compare with Instagram cadence?
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 8% higher engagement on X in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Posts with creator replies were linked to 5% higher engagement on Bluesky in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
- Instagram median weekly posting was approximately 4.5 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2024 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- Instagram median weekly posting was approximately 3.7 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
The reply associations on X and Bluesky are positive but smaller than the strongest findings in Buffer's study. Instagram's posting figures below answer a separate operational question: how frequently the selected brands published. The cadence observations are rounded values from Quid/Rival IQ's historical chart. They are not an experiment showing that reducing frequency improves results, and the sampled industry mix changed. A team can use them as a workload reference while tracking its own quality, audience response and time spent in conversations. Do not combine the two studies into a causal claim about an ideal posting schedule.
How often did brands post on Facebook and other networks?
- Facebook median weekly posting was approximately 4.2 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2024 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- Facebook median weekly posting was approximately 3.0 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- X median weekly posting was approximately 2.2 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- TikTok median weekly posting was approximately 2.0 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
- YouTube median weekly posting was approximately 1.2 in Quid/Rival IQ's 2025 benchmark. (Quid / Rival IQ, Mar 2026)
Quid/Rival IQ's selected brands published at different cadences across these networks. These medians describe observed behavior and are rounded to the precision of the source chart, instead of prescribing how often a new account should publish. A weekly median does not reveal whether activity was evenly spaced or concentrated around campaigns. It also says nothing about the production effort required by different formats. Plan cadence around sustainable quality and the capacity to respond, then test changes using a consistent account-level measurement window.
Glossary
Methodology and sources
Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.
- Buffer · Mar 2026
- Metricool · Dec 2025
- Quid / Rival IQ · Mar 2026