Prosper 202 vs Bevo Media, Which is Faster Case Study

by Mike Chiasson on September 12, 2010

A few months back there was a ton of hype around a new tracking software that came out called Bevo Media. This software was kind of welcomed into the market with a big ‘hmm….’ like every other software I see launched like it. I’ld love to go over all of these in detail but here is a quick run down of some of the issues that any tracking software would face in the affiliate industry.

  • There is already a DOMINATE piece of software out that does most of the stuff Bevo does. This is Prosper 202.
  • Bevo’s software is hosted on their servers, meaning in theory they could look at your campaign.
  • Nobody really was going to come out and say if they liked it better than 202.
  • It is kind of confusing.

A few weeks back I got a chance to sign up for a FREE Bevo Media account and wanted to give a quick review of one of the things I was most interested in.

First thing is first. I don’t think anyone can write a post about tracking software for affiliate marketers without giving some props to Wes Mahaler and the Tracking 202 team. Their software literally revolutionized many affiliates business. Although I am still a pretty new affiliate I can’t imagine going back to excel sheets after using it. At ASE I got the chance to sit down with a few people for dinner and when Wes was introduced everyone put their drinks down and starting applauding him right in the restaurant! Now that is some credibility that you can trust, all these big affiliates LOVE this guy, and for good reason. So to Wes and 202, as always, THANKS!

Now onto Bevo. I had heard reviews about it on Wicked Fire and a few other people on some private forums. Nobody really had any experience with it. Just to give a quick background, all I had heard was that it was the product of Ryan Bukevicz, it had been in development for like 2 years, and its dev cost was upward of $500k. Then came launch day for Bevo Media. I follow a few people on twitter and it looked like things were going well and that was about the end of what I heard of it. I then talked to a few people who tried it and said it was just too different so they were sticking with P202.

So what is a guy to do? I am still new enough that to switch platforms wouldn’t be TOO much of a pain in the ass. I was kind of looking for someone to try and sway me in the right direction. Then came a chance when I was in Los Angelas for Epic Advertising’s Party at the Playboy Mansion. Ryan was there with some Bevo staff and we got to drinking talking. I was asking Ryan about the platform and kind of explaining some of the issues I’ve had in the past. One of the things that really got me with redirects was the speed of them. I had been using 202 with PPV and speed counts! (Check out this post to see some crazy ideas on how to crank up your PPV load speeds) Ryan ASSURED me that Bevo could perform faster. Well I had to test it out and here are the results of my Bevo Media vs Prosper 202 (1.6 Beta) redirect speed tests.

*When I reference load time I am really meaning redirect time since the file size being pulled is almost irrelevant. The following tests were performed on a dedicated server utilizing under .12% resources at time of tests. Please note that this particular server was running CentOS 5.4 X64 with a 2.2Ghz E2200 processor and 4GB of RAM.

Free Tracking202.com Redirects vs. Free BevoMedia.com Redirects

Tracking 202 vs Bevo Media - Free

The tests showed that after 100 redirects using a free account on both Bevo Media and Tracking202 that Bevo’s service loaded a page 20% faster!!

Free Tracking202.com Redirects vs. Free BevoMedia.com Redirects (x500)

Bevo Media vs 202 500 runs

I figured some people might give me grief over only doing 100 runs so I also performed a 500 sample and experienced almost identical increased speeds on the Bevo Media platform.

Free Bevo Media vs. Free Prosper202 on Dedicated Server

Bevo’s free service continued to out perform my dedicated server that was running the newest Prosper release at the time by 5%. That isn’t that much of a difference but 5% could be the difference between someone closing your PPV ad or not!

Conclusions

Like most small tests there are numerous faults here that don’t fully allow me to without a doubt declare that Bevo Media is faster than Tracking/Prosper202. I feel very comfortable confirming that Bevo’s hosted solutions is faster than Tracking202’s hosted solution. This is obviously the result of better hardware on Bevo’s side. I would’ve loved to have had a copy of Bevo’s self install version that you can host on your own servers but I didn’t at the time.

If  you want the FASTEST solution on the market I feel pretty confident that Bevo can out perform Prosper202 on a dedicated machine. Unfortunately you will incur additional costs at the time of this writing to get the self hosted Bevo Premium option. Bevo has features that Prosper offers as an add on for a small fee. Unlike Prosper202 you do not have currently have the a la carte pricing model available for Bevo, so you either use their hosted solution or pay to host your own. Because of this I think TONS of people will continue to use Prosper. The people who have the campaigns and the cash that need the fastest solution on the market should definitely pull the trigger on Bevo.

*Notes
This post was not sponsored or compensated in any way. I utilized the service WhichLoadsFaster.com to determine was site would load faster. I pointed each redirect to a small file on the same dedicated server that my Prosper install was on. The file’s actual size was 409bytes. I now believe the actual location of the file would’ve made it load faster on the Prosper redirect since it was on the same DNS box making it need one less jump (in theory this would make the Bevo rank even better).

About the author

Mike Chiasson Mike Chiasson is the Director of IT for a publicly traded company by day and an Internet Marketer by night. He absolutely hates the words 'serial entrepreneur' but loves discussions about business. You can follow him on Twitter.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: