4 ms·
Netlify results seem disappointing, I say that as a happy user of their service. Netlify is an outlier in this comparison. For them, static site hosting is the
by PudgePacket 6y ago
Netlify results seem disappointing, I say that as a happy user of their service.
Netlify is an outlier in this comparison. For them, static site hosting is their core product, bread and butter if you will. To have such mediocre performance, as well as a relatively bad time to first byte is quite surprising.
- jorams 6y agoThis article compares it to CDN services, which specialize in static file hosting. Static site hosting is just static file hosting with a different marketing strategy and behind-the-scenes workflow. The real disappointment here is Cloudflare, which manages to be among the slowest despite their supposed focus on performance. Google Cloud Storage manages to be significantly faster than Cloudflare, while serving files publicly is "just a feature" (like for S3, which trails the pack).
- capableweb 6y agoHow about both being a disappointment? Cloudflare because they are supposed to be all about performance, which is clear from these benchmarks doesn't automatically mean their performance is actually good. And Netlify is also a disappointment because they are supposed to be all about hosting static websites, and their performance is poor for doing just that.
- NorwegianDude 6y agoI've had my fair share of issues with Cloudflare, but I'm pretty sure something is way off with the numbers in this post. My guess is that caching was off.