Streamers / AMOURANTH / Insights
AMOURANTH — streaming insights
6M followers · mostly streams IRL
When does AMOURANTH pull the most viewers — and where is room to grow? Based on hourly concurrent-viewer samples over the last 56 days.
When their viewers show up
Overall median: 663 concurrent viewers
Median viewers by weekday
Days follow the UTC calendar.
Median viewers by hour
UTC.
Viewer trend by month
Median and sampled peak concurrent viewers per calendar month — growing, flat or cooling at a glance.
Follower growth
Daily follower counts. Twitch shares subscriber and unique-viewer numbers only with the broadcaster, so follower growth — and followers gained per streamed hour — is the closest honest read on how well streams convert viewers into an audience.
Last 7 days
-2.2K
followers
We started recording daily follower counts in July 2026 — this chart covers 13 days so far and grows over time.
Category performance
Sorted by hours observed — the categories AMOURANTH actually lives in come first.
| Category | Median viewers | Vs. typical channel | Hours observed |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRL▲ Trending22 h observed · -93% vs typical channel | 663 | -93% | 22 |
“Vs. typical channel” compares AMOURANTH's median with the category's average viewers per live tracked channel over 28 days. Big channels pull that average up, so small streamers land below 0% in most categories — compare across rows, not against zero.
Games to try
Categories that IRL streamers also play, ranked by viewers per live channel.
Consistency & benchmark
Schedule reliability
Not enough scored schedule announcements yet. Once 5 announced streams have been evaluated against what actually happened, punctuality stats appear here automatically.
Size benchmark
Top 81%
of channels with over 100k followers by median concurrent viewers.
How this is measured
Concurrent viewers are sampled once per hour while the channel is live on Twitch (37 samples in the last 56 days). Medians describe observed hours only — a quiet cell means “not observed”, not “nobody watched”. Peaks between samples are missed, so true peaks run higher than shown.