What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
In this study, Telegram channel reach means the average number of views a channel’s posts receive, divided by its subscriber count, calculated for each channel separately. The published figure for a subscriber-size band is the median of those per-channel ratios. In the Pinlyx catalogue snapshot taken on 11 September 2026, median reach falls from 31.4% in the 1,000–5,000 subscriber band to 3.3% above 500,000 subscribers. The median is used because a small number of extreme ratios would pull an average away from what a typical channel looks like.
What the metric computes
Reach is calculated one channel at a time: reach = average views per post ÷ subscribers. A channel with 10,000 subscribers that averages 1,500 views per post has a reach of 15%. The two inputs are the stored average view count and the stored subscriber count for each channel. The study did not use an engagement field that was still being backfilled at the time of the snapshot.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Two consequences follow from this definition. First, band statistics are medians of channel-level ratios. They are not total views in a band divided by total subscribers in that band. Second, the result measures views relative to subscribers, which is not the same as the share of subscribers who saw a post. The section on what the number does not measure covers that distinction.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →How the catalogue was filtered
The source catalogue contained 3,205,346 public Telegram channels, captured through API snapshots on 11 September 2026. Not every entry receives a reach score. Excluded cases carry a label rather than being dropped silently or counted as zero:
#1 Best Overall
- below_floor: channels with fewer than 1,000 subscribers. They are excluded from reach figures, not scored as zero. Among channels with a known subscriber count, 85.7% fall below this floor, so the banded figures describe a minority of the catalogue.
- not_a_channel: entries that are groups rather than broadcast channels.
- no_view_sample: channels with no recorded view count.
Median reach by subscriber band
| Subscriber band | Median reach | Channels measured | How the band was counted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000–5,000 | 31.4% | 7,179 | Sample estimate |
| 5,000–20,000 | 15.8% | 2,750 | Sample estimate |
| 20,000–100,000 | 9.1% | 1,201 | Sample estimate |
| 100,000–500,000 | 6.0% | 8,380 | Every channel in the band within the catalogue |
| 500,000+ | 3.3% | 1,211 | Every channel in the band within the catalogue |
The five bands together cover 20,721 channels. Median reach falls at every step, from 31.4% to 15.8% to 9.1% to 6.0% to 3.3%. The study describes this as a pattern in the snapshot. It does not establish why larger channels show lower reach, and the figures should not be read as a causal finding.
The underlying output also stores a 101-point percentile ladder for each band, along with sample sizes and rebuild timestamps. The published figures are the medians.
Rank #2
Why the median, not the mean
Channel-level reach ratios can be extreme in both directions. The study’s author argues that either tail can move a mean away from the typical channel, which makes the median the easier benchmark for comparing one channel with its peers.
The high tail: views above subscriber count
A ratio above 1.0, meaning more than 100%, can result from forwards, cross-posts or paid promotion. Views then come from people outside the subscriber base. A few such channels can pull an average upward.
Rank #3
The low tail: inflated subscriber counts
Padded or inactive subscriber counts enlarge the denominator and push the ratio down. A channel with many dormant or purchased subscribers can look like it has weak reach even if its active audience engages.
Consider a hypothetical band (not drawn from the study) with five channels at 10%, 12%, 14%, 15% and 180% reach. The median is 14%, which describes a typical channel in that group. The mean is 46.2%, which matches none of the five. The study’s rationale is that the median gives a steadier peer benchmark. It does not separately measure how much forwards, promotion or padded subscribers contribute to either tail, so the choice rests on robustness rather than on a measured split.
What the number does not measure
Views are not unique viewers
Telegram’s post view counter can include views that arrive through forwards and web previews by people who are not subscribers. Reach here is therefore views relative to subscribers, not a count of distinct subscribers who saw a post. A ratio above 100% does not prove that the channel has more viewers than subscribers in a deduplicated audience sense.
A reach figure is not the share of subscribers who saw a post
A 15% reach means average views equal 15% of the subscriber count. It does not mean 15% of subscribers opened the post. Non-subscriber views push the ratio up, while inactive subscribers push it down. Because these effects run in opposite directions, the figure cannot be cleanly separated into a subscriber-only share.
Best Value
How much precision each band deserves
The three bands below 100,000 subscribers are sample estimates, drawn with Telegram-style TABLESAMPLE selection from the catalogue. The two largest bands cover every channel in those bands within the catalogue snapshot. A sample percentile is an estimate. A full-band value is an exact count relative to that snapshot. Neither describes every Telegram channel that exists, and neither predicts later values.
The study projects the 1,000–10,000 subscriber range to roughly 338,000 channels. It cautions that estimates for rare large-channel populations, drawn from a separate sample, can miss materially. Where a projection conflicts with a full count inside the catalogue, the full count should be preferred. No confidence intervals for individual medians are provided. Readers comparing bands should therefore treat the 6.0% and 3.3% figures as exact counts for this snapshot, and the 31.4%, 15.8% and 9.1% figures as estimates.
Fields with uneven coverage
- Category: 719 of 15,240 sampled channels had a category label. The publisher says this reflects labelling behaviour, not the platform’s overall channel mix, so it should not be read as a picture of Telegram’s topics.
- Country: the country facet was empty in that sample.
- Language: detected automatically from short channel descriptions. The publisher considers Russian, English, Arabic and Persian reliable enough to display. The long tail of other languages is noisy.
Provenance and affiliation
The dataset is version 1, carries DOI 10.17632/2z2vtj7x36.1, credits Emirhan Güven as contributor, and is released under CC BY 4.0. The original write-up links a report, a CSV file and a JSON file. The author works on Pinlyx, the CRM whose catalogue supplies these figures, and that affiliation applies to this analysis. No independent crawler audit is available to verify the catalogue, so the figures reflect one platform’s catalogue as of the 11 September 2026 snapshot.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
