Hosting Providers sites ordered by failures 43 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 www.datapipe.net Datapipe FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.004  0.053 0.006 0.013 0.016 1101 5 2 www.serverbeach.com www.serverbeach.com Linux  0:00:00  0.007  0.146 0.005 0.032 0.058 748 46 3 www.iWeb8.com iWeb Linux  0:00:00  0.011  0.101 0.045 0.091 0.091 - 0 4 www.nyi.net New York Internet FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.011  0.100 0.062 0.125 0.376 95 22 5 www.swishmail.com Swishmail FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.011  0.354 0.062 0.125 0.330 85 17 6 www.choopa.com www.choopa.com unknown  0:00:00  0.015  0.053 0.036 0.077 0.187 55 12 7 www.qubenet.net Qube Managed Services Linux  0:00:00  0.015  0.167 0.048 0.097 0.097 - 0 8 www.kattare.com Kattare Internet Services Linux  0:00:00  0.015  0.151 0.097 0.196 0.394 56 12 9 www.uk2.net www.uk2.net Linux  0:00:00  0.019  0.183 0.059 0.123 0.148 157 16 10 www.rackspace.com Rackspace F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.019  0.155 0.063 0.127 0.127 - 0 11 www.hosting4less.com Hosting 4 Less Linux  0:00:00  0.019  0.127 0.076 0.153 0.335 206 26 12 www.rackspot.com www.rackspot.com Linux  0:00:00  0.019  0.157 0.106 0.221 0.221 - - 13 www.poundhost.com PoundHost Linux  0:00:00  0.022  0.295 0.061 0.134 0.269 73 14 14 www.netcetera.co.uk Netcetera Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.026  0.016 0.061 0.124 0.250 98 16 15 www.reliableservers.com ReliableServers.com Linux  0:00:00  0.026  0.162 0.065 0.134 0.314 50 9 16 www.logicworks.net Logicworks Linux  0:00:00  0.026  0.102 0.070 0.155 0.363 219 32 17 www.aruba.it www.aruba.it Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.026  0.180 0.084 0.171 0.482 100 42 18 www.pair.com Pair Networks FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.030  0.161 0.073 0.144 0.415 74 20 19 www.peer1.com www.peer1.com Linux  0:00:00  0.037  0.070 0.005 0.014 0.043 878 62 20 www.iomarthosting.com Iomart plc. Linux  0:00:00  0.041  0.141 0.079 0.166 0.316 139 25 21 www.codero.com Codero Linux  0:00:00  0.049  0.122 0.048 0.309 0.516 169 47 22 www.inetu.net INetU Windows Server 2008  0:00:00  0.056  0.051 0.040 0.139 0.282 95 16 23 www.serverintellect.com Server Intellect Windows Server 2008  0:00:00  0.060  0.068 0.077 0.157 0.391 94 23 24 www.memset.com Memset Linux  0:00:00  0.075  0.106 0.063 0.255 0.441 110 26 25 www.dinahosting.com www.dinahosting.com Linux  0:07:38  0.086  0.113 0.091 0.182 0.182 - 0 26 www.godaddy.com GoDaddy.com Inc Windows Server 2008  0:08:33  0.142  0.175 0.077 0.195 0.848 327 269 27 www.vi.net Virtual Internet Linux  0:09:40  0.179  0.185 0.062 0.126 0.171 156 23 28 www.cwcs.co.uk www.cwcs.co.uk Linux  0:09:56  0.183  0.198 0.093 0.189 0.505 89 32 29 one.com One.com Linux  0:48:30  0.317  0.153 0.060 0.120 0.120 - 0 30 www.singlehop.com www.singlehop.com Linux  0:59:21  0.403  0.308 0.078 1.086 1.407 144 41 31 www.multacom.com Multacom FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.526  0.148 0.091 0.183 0.535 56 16 Report from 1-May-2011 00:00 till 31-May-2011 23:59 Generated on 21-May-2013 01:32

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 represent a hosting company and would like to be included in the table, we charge 1200 GBP per annum for inclusion. Please mail us at sales@netcraft.com if you would like to be included.

If you are reseaching 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, Virginia/Rackspace, San Jose/Datapipe, Italy/Aruba, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Vancouver/Peer1 and Romania/Hostway. 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.