
In contrast to what a lot of people might think, it actually takes far fewer viewers than the hundreds or thousands that most would say one streamers to be one of the top broadcasters on Twitch.com.It’s fair to say that if you want to be a big streamer on the world wide web, Twitch definitely gives you one of the best opportunities to do so, due to the massive amount of viewers that tune in to the site each day.Of course, when you think of big Twitch streamers like xQc, Nickmercs, Pokimane, and others – they regularly draw in thousands of viewers each stream and as a result rake in some serious cash.However, some surprising new stats show that you actually don’t have to bring in anywhere near that amount to be in the top percentile of streamers.

- Read More: Twitch co-founder jokes about Dr Disrespect ban during stream
So, if you’re just starting out or getting discouraged about your channel’s growth (or lack thereof) on Twitch, remember that it only takes six or more people watching to be doing better than most other people on the site. It’s also good to remember as a viewer, because who knows? Your single view could make all the difference for a small streamer.
https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1367868296473813001 We did mention Affiliates and Partners earlier, and when you get into those stats, things do become a bit more competitive, but surprisingly, not by very much. https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1367876792908922885 If you’re affiliated/partnered and bringing in more than six viewers, that puts you in the top 30% of your peers. 11 or more land you in the top 15%, and finally, to get into the tippy-top 1%, you’ll need 251+ viewers.
- Read More: Twitch streamer gets a Pokimane tattoo for a $75 donation
The stats for partners/affiliates are probably more in line with what people might think of when it comes to top Twitch streamers, and what it takes to join their ranks. Still, if you’re not partnered, it really doesn’t take as much as you might think to reach the upper echelons. Update, March 6: A previous version of this article did not credit Zach Bussey for his original reporting and analysis of the streaming data. We have updated to more appropriately credit and apologize for the error.