Hosting Providers sites ordered by failures 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 www.datapipe.net Datapipe FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.004  0.273 0.005 0.012 0.078 379 9
2 www.qubenet.net Qube Managed Services Linux  0:00:00  0.011  0.300 0.053 0.107 0.107 - 0
3 www.hosting4less.com Hosting 4 Less Linux  0:00:00  0.011  0.201 0.079 0.295 0.551 180 27
4 www.serverintellect.com Server Intellect Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.014  0.175 0.092 0.188 0.453 100 27
5 www.reliableservers.com ReliableServers.com Linux  0:00:00  0.018  0.461 0.071 0.145 0.156 269 10
6 www.nyi.net New York Internet FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.021  0.096 0.034 0.074 0.223 101 23
7 www.swishmail.com Swishmail FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.021  0.762 0.068 0.137 0.342 99 17
8 www.logicworks.net Logicworks Linux  0:00:00  0.025  0.098 0.037 0.107 0.245 182 36
9 www.codero.com Codero Linux  0:00:00  0.029  0.721 0.084 0.386 0.680 156 46
10 www.multacom.com Multacom Linux  0:00:00  0.029  0.425 0.086 0.172 0.474 54 16
11 www.dinahosting.com www.dinahosting.com Linux  0:00:00  0.029  0.211 0.090 0.179 0.179 - 0
12 www.cwcs.co.uk CWCS Linux  0:00:00  0.036  0.198 0.082 0.168 0.465 98 33
13 www.serverbeach.com www.serverbeach.com Linux  0:00:00  0.039  0.312 0.008 0.019 0.047 756 43
14 www.inetu.net INetU Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.039  0.073 0.045 0.173 0.371 114 25
15 www.godaddy.com GoDaddy.com Inc Linux  0:00:00  0.039  0.282 0.080 0.181 1.338 271 178
16 www.netcetera.co.uk Netcetera Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.046  0.018 0.069 0.140 0.284 103 17
17 www.xilo.net XILO Communications Ltd. Linux  0:00:00  0.050  0.756 0.058 0.240 0.366 92 20
18 www.pair.com Pair Networks FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.050  0.158 0.063 0.129 0.375 73 20
19 www.iWeb8.com iWeb Linux  0:00:00  0.057  1.116 0.047 0.094 0.094 - 0
20 www.peer1.com www.peer1.com Linux  0:00:00  0.061  0.266 0.008 0.021 0.059 901 64
21 www.iomarthosting.com Iomart Linux  0:00:00  0.079  0.381 0.078 0.166 0.329 159 25
22 www.aruba.it www.aruba.it Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.082  0.126 0.088 0.174 0.530 94 50
23 www.colocationamerica.com Colocation America Linux  0:00:00  0.086  0.666 0.126 0.747 1.152 110 38
24 www.rackspace.com Rackspace F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.104  0.221 0.068 0.175 0.386 205 40
25 www.singlehop.com SingleHop Linux  0:00:00  0.154  0.298 0.081 0.462 0.774 151 43
26 www.choopa.com www.choopa.com Linux  0:00:00  0.179  8.107 0.073 0.148 0.150 175 13
27 www.memset.com Memset Linux  0:00:00  0.293  0.120 0.069 0.332 0.536 121 27
28 krystal.co.uk krystal.co.uk Linux  1:53:46  0.536  0.158 0.113 0.232 0.439 171 17
29 one.com One.com unknown  0:00:00  1.447  0.417 0.133 0.269 0.269 - 0
Report from 1-Nov-2011 00:00 till 30-Nov-2011 23:59
Generated on 19-Apr-2014 01:52

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, New York/New York Internet, Virginia/Rackspace, San Jose/Datapipe, Italy/Aruba, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Vancouver/Peer1, Romania/Hostway and Zurich/Qube. 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.