Is really the fastest URL shortener? (chart) versus other URL shorteners

A few weeks ago, Google made its URL shortener,, open for everyone and gave it its own website, similar to’s. Previously, could only be used by Google’s own services.

When they announced this, Google made a pretty bold statement: “… we do want it to be the stablest, most secure, and fastest URL shortener on the web.”

That’s something that we should test, isn’t it?

So, for a couple of weeks after became open, we monitored its performance and reliability together with several other URL shortening services, including and TinyURL. We used, of course, our own website availability monitoring service (i.e. Pingdom).

Testing what matters

We were primarily concerned with the reliability and performance of shortened URLs. How much overhead do the different URL shorteners add, and do they always work? What you are ultimately comparing is the time it takes to go to a site directly versus the time it takes to go to that site via a URL shortener.

Note that we only included “open” URL shorteners like and that let you create your own short URLs (just visit their site, enter a long URL, and get a short one back). There are lots of application-specific URL shorteners like Twitter’s,’s, etc, that don’t let you do this. We didn’t include those since we wanted to test comparable services.

Since we used the Pingdom monitoring network, the continuous tests were spread out over 25 locations distributed over North America and Europe. We performed tests every minute for 15 days. For those of you counting, that means that the numbers we’ll show you are the result of 21,600 tests per URL shortener.

Performance overhead

The overhead that an URL shortener adds is that, instead of going directly to a site, you first have to ask the servers of the URL shortening service where to go, and they will redirect you to the actual target site.

As you’ll see, how much overhead this adds can vary a lot not just between different URL shorteners, but also between different geographical regions.

To be perfectly clear, what you see in the chart here below is the extra time a URL shortener adds when accessing a site. We’ve sorted the list so that the fastest total average it at the top, the slowest at the bottom.

URL shortener overhead

A few observations:

  • Since people like to compare specifically with, it turns out that is almost 3x faster than overall, at least during the time period of this test. The really big difference, however, is outside North America, where is more than 4x faster. We attribute this to Google simply having more servers in more locations, which of course is to be expected considering how many data centers the company has. In North America the difference is less pronounced, where is 2x faster on average. The difference is less here because it’s where has its servers.
  • The only place was beat was in Europe, where actually managed to inch just ahead of it in terms of performance. That said, is still 2.5x faster than in North America. It’s pretty safe to say that has its servers in Europe.
  • The most drastic difference in the test was between the European North American results for and Twurl, where the former was more than 9x faster. So there you have a worst-case scenario of how much the performance can differ between two services.

Small note for clarity’s sake: When we say for example “2x faster,” we mean the same thing as “adds half as much overhead.”


It doesn’t matter how fast a URL shortener is if it’s broken. That’s why we thought it was relevant to also show the reliability of the included services here.

Forwarding reliability for URL shorteners, October 12 – October 27, 2010
URL Shortener Uptime Estimated downtime in a year (hours) 100.00% 0.0 100.00% 0.0 99.99% 0.9
TinyURL 99.95% 4.4 99.95% 4.4
Snipurl 99.52% 42.0
Twurl 99.29% 62.2

Note that the “estimated downtime in a year” is based on just 15 days of monitoring, so it really is just an estimate based on the uptime of this limited time period.

  • Both and delivered perfect availability, and came awfully close.
  • The 99.95% uptime shown by TinyURL and is also perfectly acceptable.


After seeing these numbers, there can be no doubt that Google has indeed managed to create a very speedy URL shortener. It was by far the fastest service in this test.

While important, it should be noted that speed isn’t necessarily everything. Many use URL shorteners for other features or reasons, so this report is by no means saying that is the best URL shortener out there, just that it’s the fastest of the ones we tested. Google has delivered on its promise. will add overhead just like any other URL shortener. It just adds a bit less thanks to Google’s ability to rely on its vast, distributed infrastructure.


  1. Nice to see Pingdom using its infrastructure for interesting and relevant research!

    Also, when you said “The most drastic difference in the test was between the European results for and Twurl..”, I suspect you meant North America, rather than Europe 🙂

  2. I bet handles a lot more traffic than, so not sure how will behave when it reaches the same traffic levels as

  3. does not detect the duplicates, it generates a new short URL when you submit the same URL. However, seems to generate same short URL when you submit the same long URL.
    I can see some use in deduping for analytic purpose, but it is subjective view point.

  4. I have to give credit for’s tracking features BUT they really need to add Delete options(so you can Delete a link if you don’t need/want it anymore) and Custom URL options (Like what Tinyurl and Snipurl provide). Being able to Delete your links is a big one. It’s annoying how I have this history of links I don’t need anymore and have no option to Delete any of them. Especially when I don’t want people to access something anymore. For now I’m sticking with because of it’s multitude of Customization options. If I want a QR Code I can use any of the free generators lying around the web. The only thing I’ll miss is the Powerful Tracking tools at’s disposal. I can deal with going down a bit.

  5. Why do some people think that the number of users matter, I mean for some other, smaller shorteners it does. But for Google? Don’t think so, whether it gets 10 or 10 million visits, the speed’ll remain (as good as) the same.

    Also, I think people mentioning, didn’t really read the post 😉

  6. admin plz update ur list here is new URL shortner :
    A URL shortener that’s fast and easy to use. Our features include custom shortened URLs with real-time link trackingalso has features like facebook share, tweeter share and google + share also has QR code for url

  7. Unlike Google, url shortener gets its speed from simplicity and efficient coding.

  8. I’d love to see this test done again here in 2016, and have some of the newer URL shorteners like in the running.

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated and not published in real time. All comments that are not related to the post will be removed.required