These tables are just begging for a third-column: price. It's cool to know how these stack up to each other, but in order to actually get any utility from the article I'd need to go to 26 providers and see their pricing.<p>I would also like to see latency, which for many applications is much more important than raw throughput.
Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless you want to pay overages), this seems really low. If you're running a site where you really need a super fast CDN, it seems like you could burn through 1,200 GB very quickly. At SoftLayer I get 2 TB/mo per server, so I have some sites that have 30+ TB/mo transfer allotted, and most of them push way more than 1,200 GB each month.<p>Is there really a good use case for a CDN with such low capacity?
Why does someone go to these lengths and then only measures the least interesting metric?!<p>Nobody cares about absolute throughput, unless your business happens to be a download service. What matters is <i>latency</i> (above all things) and streaming performance.
<i>The only major CDN we were unable to test is Akamai.</i><p>They didn't test NetDNA either. They're number #5 for "content delivery network" and back up sites like mine (not famous, admittedly :-)), CopyBlogger and Uservoice. They've worked great for me.