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.qubenet.net Qube Managed Services Linux  0:00:00  0.003  0.196 0.096 0.194 0.194 - 0
2 www.hosting4less.com Hosting 4 Less Linux  0:00:00  0.003  0.142 0.101 0.204 0.391 183 26
3 www.kattare.com Kattare Internet Services Linux  0:00:00  0.007  0.186 0.064 0.129 0.263 100 23
4 www.nyi.net New York Internet FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.007  0.172 0.079 0.160 0.486 125 34
5 www.xilo.net XILO Communications Ltd. Linux  0:00:00  0.007  0.275 0.103 0.319 0.537 112 20
6 www.datapipe.net Datapipe FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.014  0.100 0.016 0.032 0.048 470 9
7 www.logicworks.net Logicworks Linux  0:00:00  0.014  0.199 0.082 0.473 0.585 228 30
8 www.choopa.com www.choopa.com Linux  0:00:00  0.014  0.207 0.088 0.180 0.245 242 11
9 www.netcetera.co.uk Netcetera Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.014  0.083 0.102 0.206 0.512 93 21
10 www.reliableservers.com ReliableServers.com Linux  0:00:00  0.014  0.285 0.103 0.199 0.275 236 11
11 www.swishmail.com Swishmail FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.017  0.175 0.083 0.166 0.296 146 17
12 www.memset.com Memset Linux  0:00:00  0.017  0.149 0.110 0.223 0.611 199 30
13 www.serverintellect.com Server Intellect Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.021  0.104 0.098 0.199 0.495 106 28
14 www.multacom.com Multacom Linux  0:00:00  0.031  0.172 0.092 0.185 0.470 52 16
15 www.codero.com Codero Linux  0:00:00  0.038  0.214 0.097 0.412 0.826 180 60
16 krystal.co.uk krystal.co.uk Linux  0:00:00  0.063  0.108 0.071 0.167 0.232 165 16
17 www.aruba.it www.aruba.it Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.066  0.151 0.113 0.228 0.986 67 50
18 www.inetu.net INetU Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.087  0.179 0.095 0.282 0.565 122 25
19 www.leaseweb.com LeaseWeb unknown  0:00:00  0.091  0.346 0.126 0.515 0.516 - 0
20 www.iWeb8.com iWeb Linux  0:00:00  0.105  0.120 0.088 0.176 0.176 - 0
21 www.iomarthosting.com Iomart Linux  0:00:00  0.108  0.140 0.138 0.291 0.460 149 25
22 www.pair.com Pair Networks FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.139  0.262 0.093 0.188 0.581 80 26
23 www.rackspace.com Rackspace F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.150  0.251 0.086 0.171 0.171 - 0
24 www.cwcs.co.uk CWCS Linux  0:00:00  0.153  0.195 0.081 0.165 0.734 68 41
25 www.singlehop.com SingleHop Linux  0:00:00  0.153  0.291 0.091 0.266 0.651 211 73
26 www.webair.com Webair Internet Development FreeBSD  0:29:11  0.153  0.366 0.084 0.184 0.375 183 34
27 www.colocationamerica.com Colocation America Linux  0:00:00  0.164  0.184 0.109 0.760 1.102 116 42
28 www.dinahosting.com www.dinahosting.com Linux  0:00:00  0.171  0.086 0.094 0.190 0.190 - 0
29 one.com One.com unknown  0:01:16  0.174  0.242 0.084 0.169 0.169 - 0
30 www.hosteurope.de Host Europe Linux  0:00:00  0.375  0.158 0.089 0.420 0.763 163 56
31 www.godaddy.com GoDaddy.com Inc Linux  0:09:08  0.446  0.362 0.111 0.397 0.940 185 82
32 www.serverbeach.com www.serverbeach.com Linux  0:17:47  0.502  0.133 0.016 0.552 0.589 443 43
33 www.peer1.com www.peer1.com Linux  0:00:00  2.532  0.103 0.021 0.243 0.341 497 77
Report from 31-Aug-2012 23:03 till 30-Sep-2012 23:59
Generated on 20-Apr-2014 18:25

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.