Comparison
Mjmπ vs π§πππ₯ππ π§π¨ππππππ‘ ππ¨π‘ππ
A side-by-side look at two public Telegram channels β audience size, reach, engagement, growth and an audience-quality estimate, all from public data.
Mjmπ@dostlar_ilk_tanishuv_beguborimπ§πππ₯ππ π§π¨ππππππ‘ ππ¨π‘ππ@tugilgan_kunga1
| Metric | @dostlar_ilk_tanishuv_beguborim | @tugilgan_kunga1 |
|---|---|---|
| Subscribers | 11,035 | 32,015 |
| Avg views | 10,362 | 28,579 |
| Engagement rate | 93.9% | 89.3% |
| 30-day growth | β | β |
| Language | OΚ»zbek | OΚ»zbek |
| Category | β | β |
| Channel age | 44 days | 1321 days |
Audience quality
An estimate from public metrics β we have no admin access to Telegramβs native analytics, so treat this as a signal, not a verdict.
@dostlar_ilk_tanishuv_beguborim
Looks reliable
- Reach and engagement sit in a normal range for this size
@tugilgan_kunga1
Looks reliable
- Reach and engagement sit in a normal range for this size
We compare only what we observe from the public surface. Engagement rate is approximate (average views per subscriber) and audience quality is an estimate, not a verdict β see the methodology.