Latest Performance News

Netcraft Hosting Provider Performance Monitoring

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of leading hosting providers' sites. The performance measurements are made at fifteen minute intervals from separate points around the internet, and averages are calculated over the immediately preceding 24 hour period.

Hosting Providers sites ordered by failures over the last 1 day, updated every 15 mins. 40 sites
Click on a column heading to sort by that column, click twice to reverse order.
Click the site name to see graphs of site performance.
FAQ
Rank Performance graph Company site OS Outage hh:mm:ss Failed Req% DNS Connect First byte Total Kb/s size(K)
1 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.233 0.007 0.017 0.018 - -
2 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.112 0.008 0.150 0.150 17494 1
3 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.332 0.008 0.203 0.382 249 45
4 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.155 0.011 0.023 0.030 1282 9
5 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.298 0.012 0.192 0.192 - 0
6 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.615 0.022 0.045 0.114 838 57
7 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.296 0.023 0.049 0.049 - 0
8 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.132 0.043 0.086 0.086 - 0
9 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.234 0.050 0.230 0.259 296 9
10 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.174 0.052 0.106 0.107 11343 15
11 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.153 0.060 0.123 0.123 - 0
12 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.149 0.061 0.127 0.168 401 17
13 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.105 0.062 0.124 0.125 2707 3
14 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.207 0.062 0.124 0.124 - 0
15 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.153 0.064 0.144 0.232 445 39
16 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.127 0.065 0.136 0.136 - -
17 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.142 0.066 0.132 0.132 - 0
18 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.104 0.067 0.132 0.132 - 0
19 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.121 0.067 0.176 0.176 - 0
20 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.222 0.070 0.141 0.141 - -
21 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.246 0.070 0.141 0.141 - 0
22 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.095 0.070 1.117 1.924 83 67
23 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.332 0.078 0.381 0.679 177 53
24 F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.000  0.194 0.079 0.155 0.401 237 59
25 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.165 0.080 0.170 0.170 - -
26 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.185 0.082 0.166 0.166 - 0
27 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.084 0.082 0.165 0.165 - 0
28 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.281 0.082 0.169 0.169 - 0
29 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.183 0.090 0.187 0.372 265 49
30 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.191 0.098 0.197 0.337 190 27
31 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.214 0.126 0.276 0.598 78 25
32 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.504 0.200 0.416 0.416 - 0
33 Linux  0:00:00  0.391  0.326 0.008 0.146 0.147 - 0
34 unknown  0:00:00  0.391  0.173 0.098 0.193 0.193 - -
35 Linux  0:00:00  0.521  0.148 0.083 0.336 0.618 368 104
36 Linux  0:00:00  1.035  0.158 0.012 1.738 2.426 202 139
37 Linux  0:00:00  1.038  0.213 0.010 0.606 0.625 2250 44
38 Linux  0:00:00  1.167  0.163 0.011 0.150 0.334 153 28
39 Linux  0:00:00  1.292  0.317 0.008 0.149 0.149 - 0
40 Linux  0:10:23  5.019  0.237 0.009 1.500 1.602 929 95
 

Report from 29-Aug-2015 15:47 till 30-Aug-2015 15:47

Generated on 30-Aug-2015 15:52

Note: Outage times display the minimum outage time which may understate each outage by up to 15 minutes, which is the sampling frequency.

If you are researching prospective hosting locations, or performing competitor analysis and would like to buy bespoke performance monitoring of sites of your choice, or access to historical data, please mail us at sales@netcraft.com

Interpreting the Tables

Using the performance of a hosting provider's own site to determine the performance of the hosting companies network, is only indicative. By default the sites are ranked in order of failed requests and time to connect, shortest first, in order to give the clearest indication of network capacity and congestion, with the least impact from the performance of the companies' own web servers, though it is possible to sort by any column by clicking on the column heading.

Presently our performance collectors are located at London/DXI Networks, San Jose/Datapipe, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Zurich/Qube, Amsterdam/Webair, New York/New York Internet-2, Italy/Aruba-2 and Pennsylvania/INetU-3. These companies have an advantage over the other companies listed in the table, as each of them have a collector in their own datacenter. Companies in the Far East are at a disadvantage as we do not currently have a performance collector in the region.

Companies using a caching system such as Akamai would have a particular advantage as the response to our request would come from the Akamai server closest to each performance collector.

If you are using the table as a guide when choosing where to locate a dedicated or collocated server, remember that connection times fluctuate continually, and only hundredths of a second separate the top companies. Avoiding companies showing prolonged outages is likely to be a better strategy than necessarily going for the company with the fastest connection time.

Other factors including availability and quality of support, and price will also be important. If you are considering shared hosting then the load on the shared hosting system will likely be a greater constraint on the performance of your site than network connection time.

More information can be found in the FAQ.