|
Summary
How do the WebSites of the
Top 10 Network Equipment compare
in terms of Best Online Experience?
Goals
For this comparative analysis of WebSites
we use two important dimensions to
rank order each WebSite in terms of Best Online Experience:
We used the eValid WebSite analysis engine, programmed (see below) to collect specific metrics that contribute to these factors. To assure accuracy the measurements were done over a short time frame and using identical access capabilities.
Results
The measurements we made of the WebSites of the selected Network Equipment companies
produced the relative Quality of Online Experience comparison chart shown.
The data shown are all normalized relative values.
![]() |
The best-performing WebSites are in the upper right of the chart, and the worst-performing WebSites are in the lower left of the chart.
Individual Summary Results
The table below shows all of the results used to construct
the comparative chart.
Click to see the eValid Summary Report with the raw data.
Click to see the 3D-SiteMap for each WebSite.
Here are Animations and
Usage Instructions for the 3D-SiteMaps.
Right-click anywhere on any 3D-SiteMap for documentation.
Here are some
Usage Hints if you want to dig deeper in the 3D-SiteMaps.
# | Company | Click For Summary Report | Comments | Click For SiteMap | Comments |
1 | Alcatel www.alcatel.com | eValid Report | B: A very big site, but relatively slow and with an annoying broken link content in the top three layers. |
![]() | B: Good spread from base, followed by very large spread to second layer, a few backward links. |
2 | Ciena www.ciena.com | eValid Report | A: Very fast, and virtually without link failure, this moderate-sized site (less than the 5000 link limit in total) is very current but tends to have a high percentage of large pages. |
![]() | A: Good, limited expansions from base, no backward dependence, good focus from various locations. |
3 | Cisco www.cisco.com | eValid Report | C+: This a very fast site, and it has few navigation failures, but the pages are 75% old and thus it is not under heavy update (at least not in the top two layers). |
![]() | A-: Classic structure, good expansion from the base page, but the site appears to have a second "virtual base page" two layers down from the top. |
4 | Ericsson www.ericsson.com | eValid Report | C-: Very slow site with a high percentage of broken links and slow-loading (large) pages. |
![]() | C: Typical site structure but with some confused dependencies and backward links. Fast near the top. |
5 | Extreme www.extremenetworks.com | eValid Report | A-: A smaller site (fewer than 5000 links in the top three layers), relatively fast and current, but with quite a few broken/unavailable pages. |
![]() | B-: Good layout but too few links from top and no cross-linking; some backward links. |
6 | Juniper www.juniper.net | eValid Report | B+: A moderate sized site, very fast, and very clean but with a high fraction of large pages (~55%). |
![]() | B: Good structure and spread, some cross-layer linking, minimal backward linking. |
7 | Lucent www.lucent.com | eValid Report | A+: This is a very fast, very well maintained site that is very current. |
![]() | B+: Good structure, a few accumulation points, and some backward links. |
8 | Nortel www.nortelnetworks.com | eValid Report | A-: A very fast site but relatively dirty and with a high proportion of large pages. |
![]() | B-: Good structure, but too many options at each layer, some cross-layer issues, and some backward links. |
9 | Redback www.redback.com | eValid Report | A-: A smaller site (less than 200 pages through depth three) but very clean, very fast, and quite current. |
![]() | A-: Good, straightforward structure but has a few backward links. |
10 | 3Com www.3com.com | eValid Report | C: Very slow and somewhat oldish, this site has an uncomfortable number of broken/unavailable links. |
![]() | A: Clean and simple structure, well organized and good elaboration. |
Methodology
To collect the data used in the chart we used the eValid WebSite
analysis engine with parameter settings as follows:
Web Access Details
All tests were done on a 384 Kbps (peak performance value) ADSL connection.
The data was collected with successive eValid runs
during normal business hours.