By Mathias 0

Photobucket is a photo storage and hosting service that allows users to host and link images from its server that has been around since 2003. In the past, this used to be free but since 2017, having amassed an incredible 10 billion photos from more than 100 million users, they introduced high annual subscription charges for the service to the dismay of many of its users.

The introduction of these high fees encouraged people to look elsewhere for cheaper services as the use of Photobucket was often a cumbersome process for users. In this post, we compare Photobucket with Img.Vision, the new kid on the block offering cheaper, faster, and more reliable public image hosting by taking a look at its performance on the independent uptime & performance monitoring service updown.io.

What is Updown.io?

This great service allows you to monitor website status by periodically sending an HTTP request to a desired URL and notifying you when the website is not responding correctly. From these requests they are also able to create an Apdex rating which indicates a client perception based performance metric – this basically means how responsive a website is and how many times engagement with it leads to frustrated users. The Apdex is calculated between 0 and 1, with 1 being perfect and 0 being terrible.

Img.vision vs Photobucket

In the first month of the Img.vision vs Photobucket challenge, the Apdex shows a near-perfect performance with a 0.98 rating vs Photobucket’s not embarrassing 0.81. However, beyond the headline figure, the Apdex also introduces us to some other major benefits found in the speed and performance of Img.vision in terms of its global application.

Based on the use of a test image with a width of 4337px, a height of 6500px, and a total size of 5.5MB, Img.vision outperforms Photobucket by 14% in terms of download speed when taking an average of all the locations worldwide. However, when zooming in on Asia and Australia, Photobucket performs particularly badly with loading times there up to 100% slower than with Img.vision and compared to other Western countries.

When you compare the most expensive plans of both services, you still find Img.vision to be far superior to Photobucket across the board when it comes to speed and efficiency. Whether it is Los Angles at 73 ms compared to 163 ms or Sydney at 105ms compared to 1.3 seconds in terms of global load times for Img.vision, the results from a month’s worth of performance monitoring make unpleasant viewing for the Photobucket service as outlined in the table below.

Photobucket vs Img.vision image loading speed

Conclusion

The results from the independent uptime performance and monitoring service updown.io highlight that in every region of the world where loading speeds are monitored, Img.vision outperforms Photobucket with loading times extremely bad in Asia and Australia for Photobucket.

Mathias • 48 Articles

View Articles