CDN-Latenzvergleich
Vergleicht Baseline- und Kandidaten-CDN-Latenzen zwischen Regionen und zeigt Differenzen sowie Budgetverstöße auf.
Paste comma or tab separated values: Region, Baseline, Candidate, SLO.
| Include | Region | Baseline (ms) | Candidate (ms) | SLO (ms) | Δ (ms) | % change | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -6.0 ms | -21.4% | Improved | |||||
| -8.0 ms | -8.3% | Improved | |||||
| +7.0 ms | +14.6% | Regressed | |||||
| +10.0 ms | +10.9% | Regressed | |||||
| -7.0 ms | -5.2% | Improved |
Summary
Average candidate
78.8 ms
Baseline: 79.6 ms
P95 candidate
102.0 ms
Average Δ
-0.8 ms
Improved regions
3
Regressed regions
2
Over SLO regions
0
Overview
Benchmark baseline vs candidate CDN latency directly in the browser. Track per-region diffs, highlight regressions, and surface SLO breaches before rollout.
How to use
- Start with the sample regions or paste measurements from your probes.
- Adjust SLOs or exclude rows that do not belong in the comparison.
- Review diff and % change columns plus the summary cards.
- Export CSV when you need to share the measurement set.
Use cases
- Compare two CDN vendors before contract renewal.
- Validate latency after enabling HTTP/3 or new edge POPs.
- Spot regional regressions during incident response.
Tips & knowledge
- Look at both raw Δms and % change to capture tail shifts.
- Measure at consistent times to avoid peak-hour volatility.
- Collect multiple passes and average to reduce jitter noise.