
Speed.cloudflare.com - manigandham
https://speed.cloudflare.com/
======
js2
Cloudflare: 455 Mbps down / 73.1 Mbps up / Latency 13.0 ms / Jitter 2.26 ms /
Server: Ashburn via IPv6.

Netflix (fast.com): 790 Mbps down / 950 Mbps up / Latency 8 ms unloaded, 12 ms
loaded / Server: Ashburn via IPv6.

Ookla (speedtest.net): 928 Mbps down / 938 Mbps up / Ping 1 ms / Server:
Raleigh via IPv4.

DSL Reports
([http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest](http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest)):
611 Mbps down / 929 Mbps up / ping 16-41ms / Servers: Houston, Dallas,
Newcastle DE, Nashville TN, Dallas.

Location: Raleigh. Provider: AT&T fiber.

Test run using Safari, macOS 10.15.4, Thunderbolt Ethernet.

Edit: the small file sizes used for some of the tests seem to drag down the
overall speed measurement quite a bit. It's biased against upload measurements
too since there's download files sizes of 25MB and 100MB whereas upload tests
only up to 10MB file size. But even there, something seems off. The upload
measurements are much smaller for the same file sizes (e.g. 170 Mbps avg vs 7
Mbs average for a 10 kB file).

I question this methodology. I care most about my 1Gps when I'm downloading
the latest version of Xcode or some other huge file. I guess the smaller sizes
are to better emulate downloading web pages, but in that case, the latency is
probably what matters more. Even with 1Gps, when I'm out in CA, sites
typically feel faster.

Edit 2:

speedtest.googlefiber.net: 800-900 Mbps down / 800-900 Mbps up (multiple tests
to servers in Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, seems to bounce around each time I
reload the page).

Speedtest (Ookla) with server manually set to Windstream in Ashburn, VA: 886
Mbps down, 900 Mbps up. Confirmed that my router is measuring the same amount,
so Ookla isn't just making up these numbers.

~~~
leihca
Thanks for the feedback, very much appreciated! I'm a product manager here at
Cloudflare, responsible for launching this tool. Since the launch, we've found
some issues that we're going to address:

\- Especially for users with a very fast Internet connection,
speed.cloudflare.com reports upload speeds much lower than expected figures.
We don't yet know what is causing this but will disable the upload part of the
test until we know more.

\- In general reported download speeds are little lower than figures coming
from other speed tests. We will revisit our methodology to understand the
discrepancy.

\- Re: the speed test automatically starting: we appreciate the feedback and
understand why some users may not want this as default behavior. We will
disable the auto-start for now.

In the meantime, we appreciate any and all feedback, please keep it coming:
you can reach me at achiel [at] cloudflare.com

~~~
hellcow
> \- In general reported download speeds are little lower than figures coming
> from other speed tests. We will revisit our methodology to understand the
> discrepancy.

For what it's worth, Cloudflare shows me at 10mbps down, and Speedtest shows
me at 160mbps (much closer to my expected 200mbps). This is a large
difference.

~~~
jgrahamc
Yes, that is. Want to drop me email (jgc @ cloudflare . com) with details?

------
bityard
Lots of people here are reporting lower-than-expected speeds with the
Cloudflare tool compared to other speed-test sites.

I thought it was pretty well known at this point that ISPs optimize traffic
for speed-test sites and throttle a lot of regular traffic, especially during
heavy-traffic times like the after-dinner Netflix bump. Since this is a new
tool, a plausible explanation for lower speeds is that not all of the ISPs'
network engineers have had a chance to prioritize Cloudflare's speed test
traffic on their routers along with the other speed test tools.

Part of me wonders if this is part of a ploy by Cloudflare to avoid throttling
by ISPs. If they design it right, the ISP can't tell the difference beween the
speed test and regular CDN content, which would be extremely clever.

~~~
tonyb
Having worked on several ISP networks that practice isn’t nearly as common as
many people seam to think. It would be technically difficult to do that at the
rate of a large ISP.

There could be capacity issues between an ISP and some content providers but
that is different than throttling or optimizing traffic.

------
hvenev
It doesn't work for me. When it starts, I get a bunch of errors:

Error fetching
[https://speed.cloudflare.com/__down?measId=4466372954803167&...](https://speed.cloudflare.com/__down?measId=4466372954803167&bytes=1000):
TypeError: i is undefined

Then it pauses itself. When I resume it, it runs for a few seconds (printing
more errors) and pauses again.

I am using Firefox 76.0.1 on Fedora 32 x86_64. None of the adblocker addons
I'm using are blocking anything.

~~~
ChymeraXYZ
Seems to be the case if you have a bit more locked down browser and don't
allow all willy-nilly fingerprinting to happen.

~~~
hvenev
Well, my browser is not that locked down. I have enabled cookies and
JavaScript, and I think I am only using the level 1 blocklist (as explained
here: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/content-
blocking](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/content-blocking)).

Edit: For the reference, I believe that the default should be at least as
locked down as my thing (all third-party cookies blocked and so on).

------
lumost
Something I find fascinating, over the last 5 years the main bottleneck on my
internet connection has gone from the provider to my wifi, despite ~3 standard
revisions in that time frame. It makes the notion of a wireless only provider
somewhat appealing if they can manage similar speeds to wifi (within range of
the 5G standard ).

~~~
ksec
Yes. Personally I am not at all happy with the direction WiFi is going.
802.11ax still sucks, compared to something like 4G LTE E-UTRA. Unfortunately
MultiFire never took off.

And we are stuck with Gigabit Ethernet still. I know 10Gbps is too much to
ask, but how about 5Gbps?

~~~
kevstev
This feels to me that its due more to a lack of demand. Ever since I got off
Comcast 10Mbps down/1 up in 2009 and went to Fios, which IIRC was offering
35/10 at the time, I haven't don't think I have ever felt that network speeds
have been a problem. I occasionally do large file transfers, but its usually
the SD card or hard drives that are more speed constrained than the network
itself.

You can get faster stuff, but its all business level and it gets very
expensive quickly. Until 8k video becomes a real thing (and thus far, 4k video
isn't even much of a thing), I don't see any real need for faster network
speeds. Do you?

~~~
ksec
I agree for most of our usage we dont need it. But it is often the peak that a
system is designed for. And while my NAS cant bump out 1GB/s just yet. It
could easy do 200 - 500MB/s.

And I often dont like the idea running into limits with Gigabits Ethernet,
which is fine on itself. I just prefer to have headrooms.

For wireless that is entirely different. WiFi, even 802.11ax just aren't
suited for multiple user with constant connection. People now prefer to use 4G
/ LTE for their speed and reliability. And that is why I would have liked to
see LTE on Un-Licensed spectrum.

------
7ewis
Love how Cloudflare keep coming out with all these new tools, 1.1.1.1 DNS,
then VPN, isbgpsafeyet.com now this. The CEO is awesome too, and often hangs
around HN.

I seem to be getting pretty accurate results unlike others here, not sure if
it's been fixed or my peerings are better:

Tests (Download):

Cloudflare: 78, 73, 73, 73

Netflix: 74, 78, 71, 69

Google: 70, 70, 70, 65

Speedtest.net: 68, 67, 70, 71

I know this doesn't mean too much alone, but for me seemed to produce on
average the highest speed.

~~~
capableweb
Seems to be degrading since I first tried one hour ago, so nothing been fixed.
Most likely the edge servers are not as great as they are made out to be, so
we're seeing wildly different results depending on the location/edge server
you're connected to.

------
harias
Warning: The website starts an internet speed test as soon as you click on the
link.

~~~
rkagerer
Good, that's why I went there.

The name is fairly descriptive; it does what's advertised without any
subterfuge. And there's a Pause button.

~~~
anonymousab
A lot of the commonly used speed tests have a start or Go button.

This isn't bad behaviour, people just may not expect it based on what they are
used to.

~~~
SamWhited
It's bad behavior if you're paying a lot for bandwidth…

------
anonymousab
Measuring and showing jitter by default is nice.

On the online gaming end of things it can be much more important than other
metrics, depending on the genre. But there is an unfortunate amount of
misconceptions floating around out there, and people tend to default to
"higher speed = better" speed test results, when bandwidth doesn't really
matter beyond a certain baseline.

------
SigmundA
I have 100MBps Frontier FIOS:

Cloudflare: 244 Mbps

Fast: 100Mbps

Speedtest.net: 83 Mbps

Cloudflare seems to consistently report higher than cap speeds due to 100k and
1mb files not engaging the traffic shaper, while the 10MB files seems to be in
line with the other speed tests which they seem to do a continuous download.

~~~
SigmundA
Also would be nice if the line chart had hover info to let you know which test
it was running at the time.

------
capableweb
Something seems severely wrong, either on Cloudflare's side, or on the way to
the cloudflare edge that the test is measuring against. It's a shame as the UI
gives you lots of information on just one page, especially like the jitter
measurement which most speedtests don't seem to do anymore.

speed.cloudflare.com: 57.7Mbps (Server location: Madrid)

Fast.com: 320Mbps

Speedtest.net: 528.39Mpbs

------
morsch
Seeing modern internet speeds still puts a grin on my face. It's _so_ fast. I
really should not be getting >100 Mbps sustained to a regional server and 50
Mbps across an ocean -- those will always be local area speeds in my mind.

Not that you'd know it, browsing the web.

------
scarface74
CloudFlare - 595/29.8

Netflix - 700/280

DslReports - 400/638

Speedtest (Okla) - 602/621

All of these are on a Dell using a USB3 Ethernet adapter. The only thing that
I currently have running gigabit not through an adapter is my AppleTV4 running
the speedtest app.

AppleTV 4/SpeedTest (Okla) - 925/751

------
terrywang
Feel embarrassed when looking at the consumer Internet bandwidth other
developed countries are having.

Meanwhile in Australia (down-under), I've waited for so long to get NBN (can
only get HFC at my place which was like over 20 years old? At least at my
hometown Shanghai, had something better than that in 2001 (GFW wasn't in shape
back then) - I remember it clearly because that's when I started Linux journey
by install Mandrake 8.1 ;-).

I was quite excited when finally enjoying 100Mbps down / 40Mbps up (I was told
here in Oz consumer Internet upload is always capped at 40% of download
bandwidth), before the cable was 100Mbps/2Mbps, useless to the way I abuse
network (mainly transferring data to North America).

Have been experiencing congestion and degraded upload bandwidth (only 4Mbps ~
8Mbps) since the pandemic, it did not restore until public school students
went back to school (last week...), finally the infrastructure issue got fixed
by the lift of social restrictions LMAO.

------
karambir
I think it will be similar to netflix fast.com but it selected Mumbai servers
when I am in Delhi(CF has servers in Delhi). Maybe this is intentional?

Kept getting the test paused automatically on Firefox Dev Edition. Looking at
the console:

    
    
        Error fetching https://speed.cloudflare.com/__down?measId=2826350041244361&bytes=1000: TypeError: can't access property "transferSize", i is undefined

~~~
heavymark
On ethernet always get close to 1Gbps on Fast.com by CF shows consistently
around 300-400. Wonder if CF is more accurate or Fast.com? I'm imagining CF
but such a difference.

~~~
jedieaston
Fast.com specifically measures your speed to a Netflix mirror, vs CloudFlare
measuring your speed to a CloudFlare data center. Netflix probably has a box
in your ISPs data center/head end that is closer to you (unless you live in a
town with a CloudFlare data center, in which case the difference shouldn't be
this drastic).

CF's score is probably more relevant since there's a lot more sites that are
hosted there than netflix (which is just netflix).

------
nunez
Results don't add up for me.

Fast.com: 620 Mbps Down, 650 Mbps Up, DFW/ATL

Dslreports: 889 Mbps down, 944 Mbps Up, LAX/IAH

Ookla: 919 Mbps down, 934 Mbps Up, DFW/Richardson

Speed.cloudflare.com: 118 Mbps down, DFW/Arlington (closest)

I then tried to run the speed test from cURL by sending a GET to the same URLs
this test uses, but it seems that I can't ask for anything larger than a 100MB
payload. This is unusual since other speed tests allow you to download/upload
up to 1GB in each direction.

I'm wondering if this speed test should use larger files for fast connections.

------
theandrewbailey
Neat, but there doesn't seem to be a way to change the server you're
connecting to.

I wondered why map markers were always airports:

> Data center locations are tracked as airport codes and may not be 100%
> accurate.

~~~
falcolas
Airport codes are virtually universal, even across country lines. They're also
tied into many other bits of information, such as weather.

------
mjmasn
Interesting... I got a result of 44Mb/s down, which is 8 more than I pay for
and 13 more than any other speed test shows (i.e. speedtest.net, fast.com, BT
Wholesale speed check).

------
MadVikingGod
I'm seeing that my upload speed (90M) is way under both what is advertised,
and what other speed tests show. Is there a good way to test what my actual
upload speed is?

~~~
drewg123
I see the same 90Mb/s as you, so I suspect they are capping at 90Mb/s. For
another test, try fast.com and click "more info" after the download stops.

I have fios 1Gb service. From clouldflare I see ~500Mb/s down and 90Mb/s up,
and fast.com shows 600Mb/s down and 900Mb/s up.

~~~
dylanpyle
anecdotally - my results here show approximately the speed i'm paying for,
which is higher than 90

------
hugoromano
Cloudflare: ▼ 567 Mbps ▲ 50 Mbps Payload 100Mb Latency 15ms

Netflix _: ▼ 890 Mbps ▲ 160 Mbps Payload 720Mb Latency 13ms

_ Netflix Open Connect is inside my ISP network

~~~
danieldk
_Netflix Open Connect is inside my ISP network_

And still a latency of 13ms? Here, Cloudflare, Netflix, Google, and Ookla
Speedtest all have latencies of 4-6ms.

~~~
hugoromano
I'm 900Km away from the datacentre via a submarine fibre but the way routing
is done it feels it is metadata surveillance.

------
TheSkyHasEyes
Nice. Didn't see anything about a terminal client. Still looking for terminal
clients beside speedtest-cli. Thanks.

~~~
Seirdy
net7-client[0] is the reference implementation for doing speed tests with
Measurement Lab, which is also behind the speed test widget in Google search
results for the "speed test" query.

SpeedTest[1] is an alternative to speedtest-cli for the Ookla speed test,
written in C++.

[0]: [https://github.com/m-lab/ndt7-client-
go](https://github.com/m-lab/ndt7-client-go)

[1]:
[https://github.com/taganaka/SpeedTest](https://github.com/taganaka/SpeedTest)

------
chaz6
It is a shame there is not an option to force IPv4 or IPv6. It defaults to
IPv6 which is good, except that because my ISP does not offer IPv6 I am forced
to use a tunnel, and that tunnel gives a misleading result compared to my ISP.

------
vezycash
From their FAQ: "Why build another speed test tool?

There are many speed test tools out there. Our mission is to help build a
better Internet. To do so, we believe in giving users a choice of different
services: you shouldn’t be tied to one provider and you should be able to
compare results across different tools."

This tool would be more useful when it allows people to "compare" their speed
with others.

Average speed in their country One network with another in the same country
Compare a country's average speed with another Rank...

Add the benchmarks and put a share to social media button and HOPEFULLY.

One other thing - add (Megabytes per second)

------
yalogin
Why would they start the test without warning like that? I would have probably
preferred to opt out of their data collection process.

------
gok
It would be interesting to actually see how Anycast is finding the Cloudflare
edge location, and how the traffic is getting routed.

~~~
jlgaddis
So run a traceroute?

------
jzoch
Its showing my location as Kansas (0, US) despite being in SF. Tried a
different browser, disabled add-ons...no dice.

~~~
TheFlyingFish
Are you on IPv6 by any chance? I got the same thing, despite being in SoCal. I
saw that the site was showing my IPv6 address, so I checked a couple of
location databases and I'm getting results that are way off. A couple say New
Jersey, one says "North America" and leaves it at that. I think that might
match whatever Cloudflare is using since the dot is just in the middle of the
US, i.e. Kansas.

Regardless, it's showing me as connecting to the LA server, which is almost
undoubtedly the clostest PoP, so I'm not too concerned.

------
maallooc
897 / 343 Mbps, not too shabby but expected better.

In my region it seems only Azure manages to pump full gigabit up and down.

------
fermienrico
> There are many speed test tools out there. Our mission is to help build a
> better Internet. To do so, we believe in giving users a choice of different
> services: you shouldn’t be tied to one provider and you should be able to
> compare results across different tools.

Under "About" section. That's a really weak argument to invent a new tool.

~~~
arghwhat
That's actually a _really_ strong argument to invent a new tool, especially
for speed tests. Each provider can never paint a full picture on their own, so
having multiple things to test against is useful.

~~~
fermienrico
You can make that argument literally for everything and anything.

Why need a new programming language? Well, because we think that our users
deserve more choices.

That does not fly well when someone needs to fork out $$$ to fund the
activity.

Back to the topic, what users _really_ need is a way to run all available
tools (there are many speed test tools out there) and provide them a "full
picture" in one shot. Sure, the test will take 3 mins to run but it would more
useful if you're concerned about usefulness.

~~~
arghwhat
Indeed, you _can_ make that argument for everything, and it still holds. You
want _more_ competition, not less.

From a speed-test service, difference is indeed in who you test against:
_Location_ is a feature. No different than programming languages providing
different features.

Without this service, you would not be able to speedtest towards cloudflare
infrastructure at all. You'd need this at the very least to try to create the
"monster" test-suite you suggest.

However, it is entirely impossible to provide "a full picture", simply because
there is no such thing. In a given moment, there is a given possible
throughput and latency for any given point A to point B, which holds no value
for any other point, or any other time.

------
prirun
This gives me NaN's when hovering over the 10K download test.

------
lewisj489
Wait... is the London one IN Heathrow airport?

------
garaetjjte
Would be nice to have manual IPv4/v6 switch.

------
dzonga
you can easily tell, it's a react app. if you've developed react apps. subtle
data rendering bugs.

~~~
odensc
Care to point out any of these bugs or...?

------
frouge
ethernet: 860 \o/

wifi: 70 :'(

------
cryptoquick
Oh, cool! CloudFlare, my favorite company, just made a speedtest!

\- It starts as soon as you visit, other speed tests don't, which violates a
user's consent.

\- It collects and saves your data, also without asking.

\- It gives wildly different results than other speedtests, with no
explanation as to why.

Of course CloudFlare would screw up a speedtest. They screw up at everything
else they do, so I'm 100% not surprised.

~~~
owenmarshall
> It starts as soon as you visit, other speed tests don't, which violates a
> user's consent.

1) fast.com, 2) this feels like a reach, isn't "going to a speed test site" a
pretty clear indicator of what the user intends to do?

> It gives wildly different results than other speedtests, with no explanation
> as to why.

I'm confused what your platonic ideal of a speed test is. Off the top of my
head, I may care about:

* "speed to my ISP"

* "speed to something I care about that's 'nearby'" (fast.com to a Netflix box peered close to me)

* "speed to a CDN" (speed.cloudflare.com)

* "speed to a random data center somewhere" (speedof.me and friends)

* "speed to a box I own"

I'd be _amazed_ if I didn't see significant deviation between all of those
measures.

~~~
rndgermandude
I am on the fence about the consent thing. Yes, it's a speed test, but no, you
don't really necessarily know that when it gets linked on some site. Burning
through quite a bit of potentially metered data without asking first seems...
rude, at the very least.

------
skilled
The data on this page means nothing to me. And, I've grown accustomed to using
Fast by Netflix - straight to the point.

------
LargoLasskhyfv
How precisely did they pinpoint you on the map? 100m/300ft here in a chromium
derivative i reserve for stuff like that.

/me feels im/depressed.

edit: Latency varies but goes down to 6 to 5.5ms, similar for jitter, but even
lower to just above 4ms. Line almost maxed out. Just missing 5up/2down. On
really ancient HW :-)

~~~
banana_giraffe
It's about 8km off for me, in a different city.

They appear to be putting me exactly where MaxMind's GeoIP database thinks I
am.

