Henry Winter engagement report
@henrywinter - 1.2M followers on X
Measured over 157 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 28, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 538 interactions against 1.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.045%. Measured over 157 original posts, its engagement rate beats 57% of 21,185 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 82K times each, and 0.654% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 6.87% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 6.2 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 157 posts sampled, 24% carry an image or video and 23% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 70K interactions, about 131x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #eng, #mufc, #afc.
Measured over 157 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 28, 2026. Recurring tags: #eng, #mufc, #afc.
Compared with accounts its own size
Henry Winter's engagement rate beats 57% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (21,185 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 36% 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 0.045%, Henry Winter sits above the 25th percentile of the 212,482 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the below the median band, which runs 0.025% to 0.146%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.025% |
| 50th percentile | 0.146% |
| 75th percentile | 0.696% |
| 90th percentile | 2.61% |
| 99th percentile | 82.9% |
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 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday 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 | 24% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 23% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 24% 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.
- 23% 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 694 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 29, 2026131x their median
Club statement. 🔗 https://t.co/yrJ8Z0A52Y https://t.co/0NP2k33JT9
- Sep 26, 2026108x their median
A letter from the Chairman. 🔗 https://t.co/JcwCQpzBOk https://t.co/PBNVCdjue8
- Sep 30, 202629x their median
“I would be really concerned to lose them.” Prime Minister Andy Burnham on the possibility of Manchester City’s owners selling up. What?! These are owners found guilty of serial breaches of the Premier League rule-book by three judges on an independent commission after a lengthy investigation. Owners who outraged other clubs and countless fans by flouting the rules and inflating sponsorship income with the Disguised Funding Scheme. Owners who misled auditors and regulators, who threaten to bring this Premier League season – and, potentially, future seasons - to a standstill by their appeal, deny, delay tactics. Owners who are patently not proper custodians of a famous, historic club. Owners who many hope will sell up and ship out after bringing such shame and sham contracts to the game. So these are astonishing, alarming comments from the PM. “I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn't just put into the Etihad and the campus around it but also into the city," Burnham told the BBC’s Chris Mason. Come on, PM. Read the room. Read the commission’s report. Read the belligerent statements from the Abu Dhabi owners and their chief executive like Ferran Soriano. Rather than thank CFG, perhaps thank the diligence of the Premier League in seeking to enforce its rules and protect the national sport. Perhaps thank the three judges for their pain-staking work in sifting through reams of evidence and coming to their considered conclusion. Burnham spoke as a politician seemingly with one eye on diplomatic and trade links. He spoke as a former mayor whose city benefited from investment in east Manchester by Abu Dhabi. “They've been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.” And how was that building financed? Burnham spoke as a politician and not the football fan that he truly is. The lifelong Evertonian is usually pretty sound on football matters. He misread the mood of many fans not wanting the possible return of drinking in Premier League stands but that was a rare misstep. This is far worse. This makes him look out of touch with the prevailing mood. He was speaking at Hill Dickinson Stadium. Maybe he should head to Anfield on Sunday week and witness the anger felt towards City. Burnham did add that he wasn’t getting involved in the process and that City had a right to appeal if they felt harshly treated. But how does the PM’s sympathetic words for controversial owners help the independent football regulator charged by Government with leading the fight against those who risk the credibility of their club, who play fast and loose with the rules and who damage the integrity of the national sport? How frustrating if Burnham’s words embolden City's owners and Soriano further. Bit of an own goal by No 10.
- Aug 17, 202628x their median
A look inside the dressing at Jack Wilshere’s half-time team talk with the Hatters trailing 3-1 away at Reading before coming back to win 4-3 🗣️ https://t.co/l884KBKVws
- Sep 14, 202625x their median
Arsenal to get in contact with Howard Webb and Pro Ref today over the Sunderland penalty awarded against Ezri Konsa when it appeared more a judo roll by Dan Ballard. It didn’t ultimately affect the result as David Raya made a brilliant save from Enzo Le Fee, and Bruno Guimaraes and Bukayo Saka scored in an Arsenal win. Interesting if they mention to Webb the controversial goal in the Manchester Derby. That’s, arguably, a more damaging decision for Arsenal this weekend from a title race perspective than the judo roll. #AFC
- Sep 29, 202625x their median
Guilty, guilty, sham and shame. How on earth can Manchester City appeal a verdict as devastating and damning as the one passed down by the independent commission investigating breaches of financial regulations? City will appeal, of course, and it’s their right under Premier League rules. They clearly will appeal, claiming the verdict is “unsafe” but they are surely simply delaying the inevitable punishment, making themselves even more unpopular, damaging their club and the game further. For justice to truly prevail in this case, punishment has to be swift. For City to start the long journey back on the road to redemption, they have to take their medicine. These are dark days in the history of the Premier League and they are darkest at the Etihad. City's owners have to see the light, accept their guilt and begin the process of rehabilitation. An appeal involving deny, deny, delay, delay, shreds any sporting integrity this season has. The thought of this taking years to resolve – doubtless via the High Court - feels potentially ruinous, certainly deeply damaging, for the sport. How many people will be turned off by a league stained by a constantly updated asterix, by a sport effectively run by lawyers. City have to take their medicine now. For sporting competitions to survive and thrive, there has to be a willingness on all parties to play fair on and off the field. That may sound naive, an outdated purist principle, but it matters to many. A few engaged in the game will take short-cuts but one of the reasons why the Premier League is so followed around the world is because of the perception of its essential honesty. Players give everything from first minute to last. Promoted teams can occasionally trouble the established order. But industrial-level cooking of the books highlighted in the independent commission’s report, effectively allowing City, regular champions, to spend more on players will shake confidence in the competition. City’s owners have to think very carefully, not least about their own and their famous club’s reputational damage. Read the room. Read the statement. How can they possibly answer the powerful, damning language used in detailing the offences devised to circumvent FFP. Others were playing by the rules, City were bending them, the commission found. City fans can argue that FFP/PSR/SCR rules are anti-competitive, and protect the “cartel” as they see it, but City signed up to the rules. And, then, in the words of the Premier League CEO Richard Masters, “systematically broke” those rules for “nearly a decade”. Masters deserves to feel vindicated for his quiet, firm leadership of the league in this long, tense case against such a wealthy, self-confident member. Many of the 40 pages of findings in the "core decision" contain blow after blow to City. If the Premier League versus Manchester City were a boxing bout, the referee would have stepped in. “Sham contracts”, “misstated accounts”, “concealed the true state of its finances from its auditors and football regulators”. “Egregious acts of non-cooperation”. Basically, deception writ large. A phrase that will now pass into the annals of footballing infamy is the “Disguised Funding Scheme” whereby companies “were only required to pay a portion of the relevant sponsorship fees. The remainder was funded by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd”. ADUG. City’s owners. The “Disguised Funding Scheme” basically overstated sponsorship income by £830.69m. A staggering amount. This is now not about Manchester City the club, but Manchester City the ownership, including the chief executive Ferran Soriano. They have to stop embarrassing the club and the sport. They have to stop letting down their fans. City’s owners have to consider the relentless abuse coming the way of fans, players and coaching staff in games to come, starting when entering what will be a bear-pit at Anfield on October 11. Soriano, assuming he attends, can expect a particularly uncomfortable afternoon in his seat and in the Liverpool boardroom. It’s hard to see how he keeps his job – if City’s appeal fails. Fit and proper person? In continuing to protest their innocence, City claim they have “irrefutable evidence” to defend themselves. If so, why weren’t three independent judges persuaded? City have had long enough, employed exceptional briefs, and still lost. Having been found guilty of doing the wrong thing, City now have to do the right thing and that is accept the inevitability of sanctions and seek some form of settlement with the Premier League. They will not, of course: too proud, too defiant, still too convinced of their innocence despite the weight of this report. They will become outcasts even without yet being cast out. That is to come. City's owners have to acknowledge the impact their activities had on other clubs, and accept the considerable compensation claims flooding their way from other clubs they pipped to trophies, possibly even from players. If they’re sensible they will look for a settlement that includes substantial compensation, running into hundreds of millions of pounds, to aggrieved clubs who missed out on trophies, on prize money. Maybe that £830.69m should be the figure considered in any settlement. Fitting. City's owners have to see sense. The alternative is years and fortunes spent in the courts. Nobody wins. Except the lawyers. Football loses, because the game remains on hold until City are punished.
- Sep 26, 202624x their median
Your England team to take on Spain! 💪 https://t.co/9L03iN5dl7
- Sep 9, 202624x their median
Ezri Konsa looks like he’s been in Arsenal’s defence for years, not 146 minutes. Closing down Napoli counters, denying Alisson Santos. Happy to go man to man with Alisson for physicality and pace. And joining attack, winning a corner. Only £55m (51+4). Why didn’t more clubs go for him? Age? Only 28, got a good four more years in him at least. He’d walk into most PL defences. Konsa clearly wanted Arsenal. #AFC
- Sep 13, 202619x their median
One day Manchester United will have elite-level full-backs again.
- Sep 15, 202618x their median
Gary O'Neil on Arsenal and Max Dowman: "I’ve definitely not had a 16-year-old as good as Max Dowman around my group! I think he's in a great spot. He's got one of the best coaches around. Arsenal are one of my favourite teams to watch and to study, for the work that Mikel's done there. It's a very humble team as well, there's no superstars in it, there's no one that doesn't get their work done." 👏
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.
Recurring topics
The most frequent hashtags in the sampled posts. They describe what this account writes about; they are not a performance signal, and the catalog-wide breakdown on the hub shows how little hashtag count moves.
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 538 interactions against 1.2M followers, an engagement rate of 0.045%. Measured over 157 original posts, its engagement rate beats 57% of 21,185 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 82K times each, and 0.654% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 6.87% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 6.2 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 157 posts sampled, 24% carry an image or video and 23% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 70K interactions, about 131x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #eng, #mufc, #afc.
- What is Henry Winter's engagement rate on X?
- Henry Winter (@henrywinter) has an engagement rate of 0.045%, based on the median interactions across 157 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,197,019 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.045%, Henry Winter sits above the 25th percentile of the 212,482 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 @henrywinter have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 57% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (21,185 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 @henrywinter post?
- Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Tuesday is its busiest day, at roughly 6.17 posts per day across the measured window.