[dejangp]

So the "All networks" TTLB metric for example says CloudFlare is #1 in 5000+ networks, other CDNs are faster in almost 15.000 other networks, meaning CloudFlare is only the fastest in roughly 30% of the networks.

Then the blog post ends by saying CloudFlare is not the fastest in 10% of cases which seems simply false.

The metric selection as well seems to be selected very much in a way where it's skewing the actual results into making them be much better than they are. A much better result would be to actually show the actual global median response times, which would likely be extremely close to each other between all major providers. Meanwhile this post attempts to make CloudFlare look multiple X better than Akamai for example.

Looking at the post in general it seems that it's very much aimed at being as misleading as possible.

Maybe it's just me.

[jgrahamc]

Then the blog post ends by saying CloudFlare is not the fastest in 10% of cases which seems simply false.

It says "we are aiming to improve our performance in 10% of the networks where we are not #1 today". That's not the same as "we're not the fastest in 10% of networks".

The network team is working right now with this data to improve in 10% of the networks and we're going to keep going.

[dejangp]

I see, my bad. I guess I was a bit hasty since the metrics kind of bothered me.

Still, regarding the other point. Any thoughts on that? We've been monitoring performance of various CDNs ourselves, mainly to improve our own performance through our own RUM metrics as well as platforms such Citrix and PerfOps, and while CloudFlare is definitely one of the fastest, it's definitely not the fastest as per your results. For example CacheFly and Limelight seem to be excelling in the US way ahead of others.

Limelight being a multi-hundred million dollar revenue CDN was somehow excluded entirely.

[Zerpiez]

Maybe they can also fix the cases where traffic is routed from Amsterdam to Madrid.