Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in January 2017

Rank Performance Graph OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.000 0.144 0.059 0.119 0.119
2 CWCS Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.210 0.072 0.166 0.166
3 Netcetera Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.105 0.076 0.155 0.155
4 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.008 0.350 0.026 0.056 0.235
5 Anexia Linux 0:00:00 0.008 0.280 0.082 0.178 0.178
6 Hostname.cl Linux 0:00:00 0.008 0.394 0.184 0.389 0.389
7 XILO Communications Ltd. Linux 0:00:00 0.034 0.239 0.067 0.135 0.135
8 Aruba Windows Server 2012 0:00:00 0.042 0.185 0.080 0.170 0.170
9 EveryCity SmartOS 0:00:00 0.059 0.119 0.074 0.183 0.183
10 One.com Linux 0:00:00 0.063 0.191 0.036 0.106 0.106

See full table

Qube Managed Services started the year in first place after responding successfully to all of Netcraft’s requests made during January 2017. This UK-based managed hosting provider has had one of the top ten most reliable hosting company websites ten times in the past 12 months, including three times at number one.

In second place is CWCS, which successfully responded to all but one of Netcraft's requests. CWCS narrowly beat Netcetera, with the same number of failed requests but with a faster average connection time of 0.072 seconds. CWCS is a UK-based managed hosting provider with data centres in Nottingham, London and Manchester, with additional facilities available in Dallas, Miami and Toronto.

Netcetera took third place, also with only one failed request, with an average connection time of 0.076 seconds. Netcetera, which is based on the Isle of Man, has been in the top ten for eight of the past 12 months, and five of these occasions saw it make its way into the top three.

Seven of the top ten most reliable hosting company sites in January 2017 were running Linux, with the remainder using FreeBSD, Windows Server 2012 and SmartOS.

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.