Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in July 2016

Rank Performance Graph OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 XILO Communications Ltd. Linux 0:00:00 0.008 0.206 0.065 0.131 0.131
2 Hyve Managed Hosting Linux 0:00:00 0.013 0.086 0.059 0.122 0.122
3 EveryCity SmartOS 0:00:00 0.013 0.107 0.063 0.125 0.125
4 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.017 0.135 0.059 0.118 0.118
5 ServerStack Linux 0:00:00 0.017 0.120 0.062 0.124 0.124
6 Webair Internet Development Linux 0:00:00 0.025 0.147 0.053 0.105 0.107
7 Datapipe Linux 0:00:00 0.029 0.140 0.011 0.024 0.030
8 Memset Linux 0:00:00 0.034 0.146 0.062 0.197 0.322
9 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.038 0.140 0.059 0.118 0.159
10 CWCS Linux 0:00:00 0.038 0.198 0.073 0.146 0.147

See full table

XILO Communications Ltd has moved up the table to become the most reliable hosting company site in July, with only two failed requests. This is the sixth time this year that XILO has appeared in the top ten, including two second places. XILO offers services from shared hosting to dedicated servers and operates from the UK.

Second place for July went to Hyve Managed Hosting, with only three failed requests and an average connect time of 0.059 seconds. Also based in the UK, Hyve Managed Hosting offers a wide range of cloud based hosting solutions, and has recently become a hosting partner for the Kentico CMS.

Third place was taken by EveryCity, with a marginally slower average connect time than Hyve of 0.063 seconds. This is the second time that EveryCity has made it into the top ten since its ISO27001 accreditation in March, and its 2-year uptime now stands at 99.998%.

After measurement from multiple geographical locations, UK-based organisations took the top four spots for July. The absence of Windows operating systems from the top ten has also continued, with the last appearance being in June 2015.

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.