In response to customers’ growing usage of mobile data and applications, in April 2016 STL Partners developed MobiNEX: The Mobile Network Experience Index, which ranks mobile network operators by key measures relating to customer experience. To do this, we benchmark mobile operators’ network speed and reliability, allowing individual operators to see how they are performing in relation to the competition in an objective and quantitative manner.
Operators are assigned an individual MobiNEX score out of 100 based on their performance across four measures that STL Partners believes to be core drivers of customer app experience: download speed, average latency, error rate and latency consistency (the proportion of app requests that take longer than 500ms to fulfil).
Our partner Apteligent has provided us with the raw data for three out of the four measures, based on billions of requests made from tens of thousands of applications used by hundreds of millions of users in H1 2016. While our April report focused on the top three or four operators in just seven Western markets, this report covers 80 operators drawn from 25 markets spread across the globe in the first six months of this year.
The top ten operators were from Japan, France, the UK and Canada:
- Softbank JP scores highest on the MobiNEX for H1 2016, with high scores across all measures and a total score of 85 out of 100.
- Close behind are Bouygues FR (80) and Free FR (79), which came first and second respectively in the Q4 2015 rankings. Both achieve high scores for error rate, latency consistency and average latency, but are slightly let down by download speed.
- The top six is completed by NTT DoCoMo JP (78), Orange FR (75) and au (KDDI) JP (71).
- Slightly behind are Vodafone UK (65), EE UK (64), SFR FR (63), O2 UK (62) and Rogers CA (62). Except in the case of Rogers, who score similarly on all measures, these operators are let down by substantially worse download speeds.
The bottom ten operators all score a total of 16 or lower out of 100, suggesting a materially worse customer app experience.
- Trailing the pack with scores of 1 or 2 across all four measures were Etisalat EG (4), Vodafone EG (4), Smart PH (5) and Globe PH (5).
- Beeline RU (11) and Malaysian operators U Mobile MY (9) and Digi MY (9) also fare poorly, but benefit from slightly higher latency consistency scores. Slightly better overall, but still achieving minimum scores of 1 for download speed and average latency, are Maxis MY (14) and MTN ZA (12).
Overall, the extreme difference between the top and bottom of the table highlights a vast inequality in network quality customer experience across the planet. Customer app experience depends to a large degree on where one lives. However, our analysis shows that while economic prosperity does in general lead to a more advanced mobile experience as you might expect, it does not guarantee it. Norway, Sweden, Singapore and the US market are examples of high income countries with lower MobiNEX scores than might be expected against the global picture. STL Partners will do further analysis to uncover more on the drivers of differentiation between markets and players within them.
MobiNEX H1 2016 – included markets
MobiNEX H1 2016 – operator scores
Source: Apteligent, OpenSignal, STL Partners analysis
- About MobiNEX
- Changes for H1 2016
- MobiNEX H1 2016: results
- The winners: top ten operators
- The losers: bottom ten operators
- The surprises: operators where you wouldn’t expect them
- MobiNEX by market
- MobiNEX H1 2016: segmentation
- MobiNEX H1 2016: Raw data
- Error rate
- Latency consistency
- Download speed
- Average latency
- Appendix 1: Methodology and source data
- Latency, latency consistency and error rate: Apteligent
- Download speed: OpenSignal
- Converting raw data into MobiNEX scores
- Setting the benchmarks
- Why measure customer experience through app performance?
- Appendix 2: Country profiles
- Country profile: Australia
- Country profile: Brazil
- Country profile: Canada
- Country profile: China
- Country profile: Colombia
- Country profile: Egypt
- Country profile: France
- Country profile: Germany
- Country profile: Italy
- Country profile: Japan
- Country profile: Malaysia
- Country profile: Mexico
- Country profile: New Zealand
- Country profile: Norway
- Country profile: Philippines
- Country profile: Russia
- Country profile: Saudi Arabia
- Country profile: Singapore
- Country profile: South Africa
- Country profile: Spain
- Country profile: United Arab Emirates
- Country profile: United Kingdom
- Country profile: United States
- Country profile: Vietnam
- Figure 1: MobiNEX scoring breakdown, benchmarks and raw data used
- Figure 2: MobiNEX H1 2016 – included markets
- Figure 3: MobiNEX H1 2016 – operator scores breakdown (top half)
- Figure 4: MobiNEX H1 2016 – operator scores breakdown (bottom half)
- Figure 5: MobiNEX H1 2016 – average scores by country
- Figure 6: MobiNEX segmentation dimensions
- Figure 7: MobiNEX segmentation – network speed vs reliability
- Figure 8: MobiNEX segmentation – network speed vs reliability – average by market
- Figure 9: MobiNEX vs GDP per capita – H1 2016
- Figure 10: MobiNEX vs smartphone penetration – H1 2016
- Figure 11: Error rate per 10,000 requests, H1 2016 – average by country
- Figure 12: Error rate per 10,000 requests, H1 2016 (top half)
- Figure 13: Error rate per 10,000 requests, H1 2016 (bottom half)
- Figure 14: Requests with total roundtrip latency > 500ms (%), H1 2016 – average by country
- Figure 15: Requests with total roundtrip latency > 500ms (%), H1 2016 (top half)
- Figure 16: Requests with total roundtrip latency > 500ms (%), H1 2016 (bottom half)
- Figure 17: Average weighted download speed (Mbps), H1 2016 – average by country
- Figure 18: Average weighted download speed (Mbps), H1 2016 (top half)
- Figure 19: Average weighted download speed (Mbps), H1 2016 (bottom half)
- Figure 20: Average total roundtrip latency (ms), H1 2016 – average by country
- Figure 21: Average total roundtrip latency (ms), H1 2016 (top half)
- Figure 22: Average total roundtrip latency (ms), H1 2016 (bottom half)
- Figure 23: Benchmarks and raw data used