AI-Powered Universal Comparison Engine

Magazines: The Economist vs. National Geographic

Quick Verdict

The Economist is better suited for readers interested in global economics, politics, and business with in-depth analysis and data visualizations. National Geographic is a better choice for those seeking broad coverage of geography, history, nature, and science with stunning photography and a pro-science perspective, at a lower subscription cost.

Key features – Side-by-Side

AttributeThe EconomistNational Geographic
Editorial Stance/BiasClassical, social, and economic liberalism; supports free markets, free trade, free immigration, deregulation, and globalization; favors centrist politics and radical centrism.Generally considered a pro-science source with minimal bias; has acknowledged past racist coverage.
Depth of AnalysisKnown for interpretive analysis and in-depth special reports; offers insights into economic trends and their potential impact on investment portfolios.In-depth coverage of geography, history, nature, science, and world culture.
Geographic FocusCovers world events, politics, and business with a global perspective; multi-page sections dedicated to specific geographical regions.Global, covering various parts of the globe.
Frequency of PublicationPublished weekly in print and daily on digital platforms; 51 issues per year.Monthly (12 issues per year).
Readership DemographicsHigh-income, elite readership consisting of business leaders, policymakers, and those in government, education, economics, or policy; largely male.Broad audience, including younger and older adults; online audience is 42.05% male and 57.95% female, with the largest age group of visitors being 25-34 year olds.
Subscription CostIntroductory offers around $12 for 12 weeks; full-price print + digital around $225 for one year, digital-only around $189; student discounts and gift subscriptions may be available.US: Approximately $59.00 per year; UK: Varies.
Online AccessibilityProvides online access with features such as descriptive hyperlink text, scalable fonts, and an easy-to-see color scheme; apps like The Economist Espresso available.Interactive online edition and strong social media presence.
Use of Visuals (Photography, Charts)Known for data journalism and visual storytelling; uses clear and simple layouts in charts and graphs, highlighting key trends and comparisons.Known for stunning photography and visuals.
Special Issues/ReportsIn-depth special reports approximately every two weeks, covering topics in Countries and Regions, Business, Finance and Economics, Science, and Technology.Publishes special issues and reports.
Awards and RecognitionReceived awards including "European Magazine of the Year" in 2019; won British Journalism Awards and TV BAFTAs.Numerous awards, including National Magazine Awards.
Historical ReputationFounded in 1843; long-standing reputation for influential coverage of global capital markets, businesses, and political developments; considered a newspaper of record in the UK.Founded in 1888, long-standing reputation for promoting geographic knowledge and exploration.
Fact-Checking AccuracyMost articles are considered factual and neutral; editorials and op-eds are separated from news reporting.Rigorous commitment to fact-checking and journalistic integrity.

Overall Comparison

The Economist: $225/year, weekly publication. National Geographic: $59/year, monthly publication.

Pros and Cons

The Economist

Pros:
  • In-depth analysis of international political, economic, and social developments
  • Global perspective with coverage of various regions
  • Effective use of data visualizations
  • Commitment to online accessibility
  • Factual and neutral reporting in most articles
Cons:
  • Subscription cost can be expensive
  • Editorial stance may not align with all viewpoints

National Geographic

Pros:
  • In-depth coverage of diverse topics
  • Stunning photography and visuals
  • Global geographic focus
  • Pro-science editorial stance
  • Rigorous fact-checking
  • Interactive online edition
  • Long-standing historical reputation
Cons:
  • Acknowledged past racist coverage

User Experiences and Feedback