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. 44 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  0.127 0.010 0.273 0.318 1386 62
2 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.112 0.014 0.029 0.044 580 9
3 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.297 0.016 0.033 0.125 575 53
4 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.091 0.021 0.045 0.045 - 0
5 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.211 0.050 0.100 0.102 2303 3
6 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.273 0.051 0.104 0.104 - 0
7 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.068 0.051 0.123 0.228 220 23
8 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.174 0.052 0.104 0.169 345 22
9 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.096 0.055 0.369 0.369 - 0
10 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.088 0.055 0.111 0.112 - 0
11 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.090 0.055 0.126 0.126 - 0
12 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.260 0.057 0.113 0.113 - -
13 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.105 0.061 0.134 0.211 447 34
14 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.231 0.069 0.350 0.650 180 54
15 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.112 0.069 0.139 0.180 410 17
16 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.316 0.069 0.352 0.582 95 22
17 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.126 0.070 0.147 0.331 294 54
18 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.089 0.070 0.141 0.141 - 0
19 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.139 0.073 0.158 0.200 354 15
20 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.175 0.078 0.156 0.156 - 0
21 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.175 0.081 0.146 0.241 370 35
22 Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.000  0.147 0.083 0.228 0.556 216 71
23 F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.000  0.140 0.084 0.262 0.574 152 48
24 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.221 0.089 0.175 0.594 70 30
25 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.249 0.091 0.565 1.647 56 60
26 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.178 0.102 0.181 0.225 255 11
27 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.187 0.106 0.176 0.176 - -
28 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.081 0.122 0.254 0.628 146 55
29 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.195 0.128 0.257 0.541 84 24
30 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.240 0.135 0.267 0.523 148 38
31 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.186 0.138 0.273 0.273 - 0
32 Linux  0:00:00  0.261  0.133 0.077 0.155 0.155 - 0
33 unknown  0:00:00  0.390  0.071 0.023 0.148 0.149 1898 1
34 Linux  0:00:00  0.391  0.126 0.059 0.144 0.146 - -
35 Linux  0:00:00  0.519  0.263 0.101 0.337 1.078 296 219
36 Linux  0:00:00  0.520  0.194 0.122 0.552 0.878 198 65
37 Linux  0:00:00  0.521  0.173 0.124 0.249 0.375 129 16
38 unknown  0:00:00  0.649  0.214 0.071 0.206 0.206 - 0
39 unknown  0:00:00  0.780  0.143 0.102 0.200 0.200 - -
40 Citrix Netscaler  0:00:00  1.036  0.189 0.124 0.457 1.004 127 70
41 unknown  0:00:00  1.167  0.143 0.031 0.611 0.658 924 43
42 Linux  0:00:00  1.167  0.117 0.071 0.152 1.212 29 30
43 Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  1.926  0.113 0.068 0.151 0.845 106 74
44 unknown  0:00:00  2.564  0.123 0.020 1.326 1.454 662 85
Report from 21-Aug-2014 15:35 till 22-Aug-2014 15:31
Generated on 22-Aug-2014 15:44

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, New York/New York Internet, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, San Jose/Datapipe, Italy/Aruba, Romania/Hostway, Zurich/Qube and Amsterdam/Webair. 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.