Kathryn Kellogg vs IFLScience — Instagram Profile Comparison
Compare Kathryn Kellogg and IFLScience Instagram profiles side-by-side. Analyze followers, engagement rates, and account performance.
This page provides a detailed Instagram comparison between @going.zero.waste (Kathryn Kellogg) and @iflscience (IFLScience). With 700.2K and 698.2K followers respectively, both accounts are classified as Large and Large level Instagram profiles. Our analysis covers key areas including follower statistics, engagement rates, posting frequency, hashtag strategy, and authority scores.
Profile Overview
🌿Eco-friendly & mindful living 👇FREE Crash Course in Sustainability 💌 Partnerships: goingzerowaste@gmail.com
700.2K
Followers
50%
1.2K
Following
2.1K
Posts
17%
The lighter side of science 🚀 For more science news click here 👇👇👇👇
698.2K
Followers
50%
302
Following
10.5K
Posts
83%
In this overview, @going.zero.waste is currently leading the comparison with stronger numbers in 2 out of 3 primary metrics. The percentage bars reflect each account's share relative to the combined total of both profiles.
Top Performing Posts
Social media is changing what we think ‘normal’ life looks like. Were constantly bombarded with overflowing shopping carts, hauls, a mass consumption. Over time that exposure is moving the baseline of what we think everyday life is supposed to look like. And, I’m not saying everyone is going to be filling shelves like these - but it will even creep into my thoughts like, ‘maybe I do need a few new outfits for vacation,’ or ‘maybe I do need a dress for that event,’ Or maybe it’s second guessing asking to borrow something from someone and instead feeling the pressure to buy new and NOW. We’ve removed all of the friction from shopping, making it the easy choice. I’m diving into all this and my latest longform video six ways influencers completely warped, our ideal normals Come normal and I’ll send it to you! #goingzerowaste #ecofriendly #overconsumption
@going.zero.waste's best post achieved 24.6K likes, which is 23.8K more than @iflscience's top post at 827 likes. A strong top post typically indicates either viral content, high audience resonance, or effective use of Instagram's recommendation algorithm.
Key Metrics Comparison
In this head-to-head comparison, @going.zero.waste wins 5 out of 6 categories while @iflscience takes 1. @going.zero.waste leads overall, but @iflscience shows notable strength in Total Posts.
The most significant gap appears in Engagement Rate, where @going.zero.waste leads by 94%.
Hashtag Performance
12
With Hashtags
0
Without Hashtags
0
With Hashtags
12
Without Hashtags
@going.zero.waste uses an average of 3.1 hashtags per post, while @iflscience does not currently use hashtags. The data shows that hashtags boost engagement for @going.zero.waste.
Engagement Trend
-81.3%
Engagement change
Likes
Comments
+4.4%
Engagement change
Likes
Comments
@going.zero.waste shows a significant -81.3% engagement decline. This sharp drop may be influenced by one or more viral older posts that inflated the historical average, rather than indicating a genuine loss of audience interest.
@iflscience maintains a stable engagement trend with only 4.4% variation between older and recent posts, indicating consistent audience interaction.
Overall, @iflscience demonstrates the stronger engagement trajectory in this comparison.
Posting Frequency
@going.zero.waste
@iflscience
Both accounts post approximately 12.0 and 12.0 times per week respectively. @iflscience achieves a higher consistency score of 57%, meaning their posting schedule is more predictable.
This significant consistency gap suggests that @iflscience follows a more disciplined content calendar, which typically results in better algorithm favorability on Instagram.
Advanced Analytics
The Authority Score is calculated from five weighted factors: Reach (max 25), Engagement (max 30), Follower-to-Following Ratio (max 20), Consistency (max 15), and Verification status (max 10). Scores above 80 are rated "Elite".
Account Classification
700.2K followers
Range: 500K-1M
@going.zero.waste
698.2K followers
Range: 500K-1M
@iflscience
The Influence Index reflects an account's overall impact potential on a scale of 1-100, combining audience size with engagement quality and content activity.
Engagement Quality
@going.zero.waste
0.89%
Benchmark: 0.5-1%
@iflscience
0.05%
Benchmark: 0.5-1%
Following/Followers Ratio
@going.zero.waste
0.0018
Very influential
@iflscience
1:2.3K
Very influential
Content Density(posts per 1K followers)
@going.zero.waste
2.98
Active@iflscience
15.06
Very ActiveContent Density measures total posts per 1,000 followers. Higher values indicate more prolific content creation relative to audience size. Celebrity accounts typically show low density due to massive follower counts.
Expert Verdict & Conclusion
Overall Analysis:
After analyzing all available metrics across 5 categories, @going.zero.waste emerges as the clear leader in this comparison with 4 metric wins compared to @iflscience's 1.
@going.zero.waste
@going.zero.waste excels in: Followers, Engagement Rate, Avg Likes, Avg Comments.
With an engagement rate of 0.89% (benchmark for this size: 0.5-1%), this profile demonstrates below-average audience interaction.
@iflscience
@iflscience excels in: Posts.
Conclusion
This comparison highlights that Instagram success is multifaceted. While @going.zero.waste has the larger audience (700.2K followers), @going.zero.waste generates deeper engagement per post (0.89%). Both accounts represent significant influence within their space on Instagram.
Other Comparisons You Might Like
Account comparisons in the same category as @going.zero.waste
FAQ About @going.zero.waste vs @iflscience
Detailed answers about this specific comparison and metrics
Still have questions?
Contact us