Either way, given their performance we were not interested to upgrade. Cedexis currently shows CloudFlare with 22.9% error rate and 1123ms slowest avg response time, in the USA.
If you can tolerate that kind of performance in a primary market then you don't need a CDN to begin with.
The Cedexis numbers seem very suspicious. Their own 'Multi CDN Optimized' service wins every comparison by a lot, and if their methodology is somehow failing for CloudFlare (which I've used with minimal problems — certainly not a 22%+ error rate! — it's not clear they'd be motivated to fix it.
Well, as said, I'm not affiliated with them, but their methodology is documented (see link at the top of the page) and I doubt they have an interest to fudge numbers that can be verified by third parties.
I assume Cloudflare is having a temporary problem right now, their figures don't normally look this bad (last I checked they were in the top10 on cedexis).
However, this mirrors what we observed in our lengthy evaluation. Performance was extremely variable, up to the point of some regions becoming effectively unavailable for hours at a time. Today might be such a time...
I would love to see how CloudFlare response to this. If they do. From my own testing Cloudflare definitely isn't the fastest CDN, but it has been improving since start of the year and now to an acceptable standard for a CDN. Especially it is free.
Either way, given their performance we were not interested to upgrade. Cedexis currently shows CloudFlare with 22.9% error rate and 1123ms slowest avg response time, in the USA.
If you can tolerate that kind of performance in a primary market then you don't need a CDN to begin with.