Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in February 2016

Not open for further replies.


Staff member
Rank Performance Graph OS Outage
hh:mm:ss Failed
Req% DNS Connect First
byte Total
1 Inc Linux 0:00:00 0.000 0.266 0.005 0.015 0.016
2 Netcetera Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.077 0.087 0.178 0.178
3 Lightcrest unknown 0:00:00 0.009 0.301 0.006 0.022 0.026
4 XILO Communications Ltd. Linux 0:00:00 0.009 0.235 0.075 0.143 0.143
5 Bigstep Linux 0:00:00 0.013 0.151 0.062 0.124 0.124
6 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.018 0.152 0.060 0.128 0.128
7 Linux 0:00:00 0.018 0.485 0.203 0.422 0.422
8 Datapipe Linux 0:00:00 0.022 0.156 0.013 0.026 0.032
9 LeaseWeb Linux 0:00:00 0.022 0.368 0.026 0.054 0.054
10 Anexia Linux 0:00:00 0.022 0.194 0.086 0.177 0.177

See full table

GoDaddy had the most reliable hosting company site in February, responding to every Netcraft request. This is the ninth consecutive month that GoDaddy has featured in the top 10, and the fourth time it has reached first place in the past 12 months.

Netcetera took second place in February with just one failed request. Based in the Isle of Man, Netcetera is celebrating its 20th birthday in 2016 with a series of special promotions. Over 11 years of monitoring by Netcraft, Netcetera has maintained a 99.96% uptime record.

Third place goes to Lightcrest, appearing in the top 10 for the third time in four months. Although both Lightcrest and XILO had two failed requests each, Lightcrest had a faster average connection time. Lightcrest's customers can use its Kahu Compute Fabric platform for Lightcrest-hosted deployments and those hosted remotely.

Linux remains the dominant choice of operating system among the most reliable hosting sites. This is the eighth consecutive month without any sites powered by Windows appearing in the top 10.

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around forty 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.

From a customer's point of view, the percentage of failed requests is more pertinent than outages on hosting companies' own sites, as this gives a pointer to reliability of routing, and this is why we choose to rank our table by fewest failed requests, rather than shortest periods of outage. In the event the number of failed requests are equal then sites are ranked by average connection times.

Information on the measurement process and current measurements is available.

Continue reading...
Not open for further replies.