Standfirst. The Hosting Anatomy series (published by Jonas Zimling) interprets the structure of the large hosting groups consolidating European markets. This page holds the instrument readings the articles draw on: what was measured, on which population, with which definitions, and where the measurements stop. The argument lives in the articles. The evidence lives here.
Data version: stated in the live figures panel below. Every figure on this page is recomputed from the currently served dataset on each site build.
The readings cover the hosting groups currently profiled, measured at brand grain — each consumer brand read separately, then rolled up — because group averages hide exactly the variation the series examines. The count of profiled groups is in the live figures panel below.
The profiled set is not a geographic classification. It is the mapped consolidator set our industry-map instrument serves — groups selected for their consolidation activity in the hosting market, including groups headquartered outside Europe. No instrument classifies groups by geography, so no figure on this page carries a geographic filter. Where the articles say "European", that is the series' editorial focus, not a served selection rule.
Two instruments, two sets. The structural readings come from two served instruments — the industry map (cohesion, own-network serving share) and the integration-depth scoreboard (platform hub share) — and their profiled sets are not identical: on the current dataset they differ by one group each way. Every range on this page names the instrument it is computed on, and the size of the membership difference is itself a published figure in the panel.
Counts and shares on this page always name the population they are computed on. The book types used here (active domains, the live-business book, its page-observed slice, the mail-carrying book) are defined once on the data methodology page; this page states which book each figure uses and does not redefine them.
Every reading on this page is one of three things, and the wording keeps them apart:
The anatomy labels the articles use (vertically integrated, federated, orchestrator) are interpretation built on top of these metrics. They appear in the articles, not here.
Brand-stack cohesion. Calculated, on the industry-map instrument, over the live-business book, size-weighted per brand. Within one brand, the degree to which the observed layers (DNS, web serving, mail) follow one coherent design. Range across profiled groups: in the panel.
Migration stage. Derived classification, per brand, on the integration-depth instrument. Where an acquired brand's stack stands relative to the group platform, in the instrument's own vocabulary: standalone, mail-migrated, hosting-migrated, or hosting-and-mail migrated — plus cloud-masked, which is a detection limit, not a stage: a brand whose serving is hidden behind cloud or CDN infrastructure cannot be placed either way and is never counted as migrated or as standalone. The residual standalone count is the calculated metric on top.
Layer build-or-buy. Derived classification, per brand and layer: whether the group operates that layer's machinery or buys it. Asked only where the evidence supports the question; a brand we cannot evidence either way is recorded as unresolved, never guessed.
SaaS attachment. Calculated. Fingerprints of monetizable services on fetched pages, divided by the page-observed slice of the live-business book. Every rate is published beside its measured base and its coverage.
Book quality (page states). Calculated, on the page-observed slice of the live-business book. The share of observed pages carrying no real site, split by what the page is: a platform's own default page on a provisioned, unbuilt domain (a placeholder), or a decayed page — expired, suspended, an error page, or parked for sale. The two halves are published separately, on the same base, because they describe different things. Pages whose fetch was answered by an anti-bot interstitial are counted in neither half: nobody has read the page behind them, so they are excluded from the base and published as a separate count — a floor, because interstitials are recognised from a curated list and new ones appear.
Email posture. Calculated, on the mail-carrying book. Two separate readings: presence (an SPF or DMARC record exists) and enforcement (SPF ends in hard-fail; DMARC policy rejects or quarantines). A record at monitoring-only counts toward presence and not enforcement.
Customer movement. Raw observation with a calculated incidence. DNS delegation changes between operators. Direction is measured; calibrated rates are not yet published, so every movement figure on this site is direction-only.
Article 1 — Why brand and domain counts mislead. Uses the ranges of hub share, cohesion and own-network serving share across the profiled set, against active-domain book sizes. Hub share is read from the integration-depth scoreboard; cohesion and own-network serving share from the industry map — the two instruments' sets differ by one group each way, and each range is computed on its own instrument's set. The measured point: groups of similar book size sit at opposite ends of each structural range.
Article 2 — The three anatomies. Uses per-brand stage classifications, hub share and residual standalone counts on multi-country groups. The measured point: platform concentration and residual standalone count vary independently of the number of national markets in which a group holds a leading brand.
Article 3 — Architecture and business signals. Uses SaaS fingerprint rates beside their measured bases and coverage, against platform hub share; and the page-state split on the page-observed slice, read within one book. The measured point: attach rates do not rise monotonically with platform concentration across the comparable set, and more than half the group pairs inside it run the other way.
Which reading, and what it cannot see. Three attach readings are served on one measured base — the share of pages running any third-party service, the share running a service that indicates buying intent, and the share running a service that is paid for. The article's ordering claims are made on the FIRST of them and say so; all three are published per group in the figure table at the foot of this page, so the reading can be checked against the other two. What all three see is the software running on the page. That includes a hoster's OWN site builder: the technology census detects them - one.com's editor, IONOS MyWebsite, the STRATO editor, Aruba SuperSite, Webnode - they are value-rated, and all three readings count them, which works in favour of the groups that run one. None of the three measures billed attach. The article's head-to-head sentences also apply the same coverage bound the exhibit is selected under, which is why United Internet — inside the comparable set, and out-attached on the any-service reading — is not named beside your.online in the article: its book is observed 8.7 coverage points shallower, over that bound. Its row is in the table with every reading it serves.
The comparability band, and who sits outside it. A SaaS fingerprint rate is a claim about the slice of a book we have actually fetched a page for, so two rates on materially different coverage are two different measurements. The band this article compares inside is not a fixed threshold anybody chose: it is the release's own median page-observation coverage across every group-level book the attach reading carries — the same construction the page-observed quality readings use for their depth floor, though over a much smaller population, and both counts are published in the panel below so the two floors can be told apart. It is re-derived and republished with every release. On this release Tucows, Newfold Digital, hosting.com (fka World Host Group), Team Internet and GoDaddy fall under that floor and are not plotted against it. Their rates are not withheld: a floor suppresses a comparison, never a reading, and every profiled group — inside the band and outside it — is published by name with its rate, its coverage and its measured base in the figure table at the foot of this page. Namespace clears the floor and has no identified principal platform, which is a detection limit and never a concentration of zero, so it is in the band and not on the concentration axis.
And only books selling the same thing are ranked against each other. An attach rate over a book of cloud instances and servers is not the same measurement as an attach rate over a book of ordinary web hosting, so a group is ranked only where the majority of its origin-attributed book carries the hosting role rather than the cloud-infrastructure role. On this release that sets OVHcloud aside: the hosting-role reading puts most of its book on cloud infrastructure, against a large majority of shared hosting on every group that is ranked. Its rate, its concentration and its shared-hosting share are published in the figure table with the reason on the row — the reading stands, the ranking does not. Two things that reading is not: it classifies the ORIGIN NETWORK a domain is served from and not the product a group sells, and its own rule names infrastructure operators explicitly, so a group serving its own book from its own network can be classified by its name; and its base is the domains carrying an origin-network attribution, not the whole book. No tool on the connector publishes this mix at group grain today — the layer's definition is served by the definitions tool, and the hosting layer of the market-structure tool is the nearest surface a reader can reproduce it against.
Which groups are compared at all. The profiled set is the operators our actor taxonomy resolves as hosting groups. The build/buy and attach questions describe a shared hoster, so an operator the taxonomy has not resolved as one — a nameserver operator, a registrar, a CDN, a telco — is not compared here and is not counted as anything either. Some of them carry high concentration and high measured attach; their absence from this page is a statement about what they are, not about how they score.
Is it a mix effect? The obvious explanation for a difference in attach is a difference in customers, so the composition of every book the article names is published in the mix table at the foot of this page. They are broad small-business mixes: on this release no single industry is a tenth of any of them and it takes their ten largest together to reach about half the book, and the two books the article puts side by side carry eight of their ten largest industries in common with their overall shares lining up almost exactly. Shares divide by the industry-labelled subset of each group's live-business book, which is smaller than the book and is published beside them; the labelling grows with coverage, so these are readings of what has been labelled, not a census.
Inside a loose group, attach is a brand property. The two largest brands of each loose group the article names are published in the brand table at the foot of this page - on the same any-third-party-service reading the groups are ranked on, served at brand grain - each with its rate, its measured base and the share of its book we have fetched a page for, beside the rest of that group's measured brands taken together where the article says it of them. The spread between those two brands is compared with the spread between the ranked groups; both are figures in the panel, and the article's sentence that the first exceeds the second is those figures compared, not a separate reading. Beside it, every group named in the article's buyer sentence has a row saying how much of its book its two largest platforms carry - a hub where a brand has been moved onto one, the brand itself where it stands alone - on the scoreboard's own brand rows, which is a different base from the concentration axis. A brand under the brand-level reading's inclusion floor is counted on the remainder row as not read, never folded to a zero.
What is not served here. Three of the article's statements are HostingBrain's own analysis rather than published data, and carry no figure here: that comparing a hoster's customers with the same trade in the same country on other hosters leaves the ordering unchanged; the sizing of the attach gap at list prices; and the resale-line reading behind the shelf. The sizing is third-party spend at catalogue list bands - what customers would be paying somebody for those products - and it is a low bound, not any operator's revenue. Everything else the article states is in the tables below.
One number, two stories — inside one book. The page-state split separates a hosting provider's own placeholder on a paid, unbuilt domain — unrealized attach — from an expired, suspended or parked-for-sale page, which is decay. Both are shares of the page-observed slice, and their sum is the share of observed pages carrying no site: the single number a book is usually described by. Split, one book can change meaning completely.
The placeholder share is not comparable across hosters, and no comparison of it is published here. Placeholder shares are read within one book and not compared across hosters; the visible unbuilt share depends on the hoster's provisioning practice. The split is read at all only where a book clears the page-observation depth floor and the attach coverage band; GoDaddy and Team Internet clear the first and not the second, OVHcloud is set aside on book type, and all three are named rather than quietly averaged in. That set is not a subset of the groups plotted against concentration: an identified platform hub is required to sit on that axis and is not required here.
Movement is a direction. Cross-group delegation changes are read as a sign and never as a rate: the observation cohort is not balanced — re-scanned domains are over-represented and domains observed once never contribute — so no incidence is published here or anywhere else on this site. A layer's direction is classified only where the net movement clears one per cent of that group's own gross cross-group movement on that layer; under it the layer reads balanced, and the group is published as unclassified rather than handed a sign the observation cannot carry. No profiled group is unclassified on this reading; where one is, it is named here.
Article 4 — Email and SaaS as secondary indicators. Uses the presence-versus-enforcement split and the attach readings against the primary architecture metrics. The measured point: both signal families can diverge from hub share and stage mix on the same groups.
Article 5 — What outside-in data can and cannot establish. Uses the full instrument list and the boundary statement below. The measured point is the boundary itself: what the wire records and what it cannot.
Page-observation coverage differs across groups. Attach percentages are coverage-qualified: each is published beside its measured base and its coverage, and where coverage differs materially between two groups the percentages are published side by side with their coverage rather than compared directly. No comparability threshold is fixed in this page's copy. Where a comparison is drawn, the band it is drawn inside is derived from the release's own coverage distribution, published in the panel below, and re-derived every time the data behind this page moves; every book that falls outside it is named with its own coverage.
Figures on different book types are never averaged or added. A rate on the live-business book and a count on the active-domains book are different instruments.
Every absolute count on this page carries its book type and its as-of date via the panel below.
The instruments observe public infrastructure from the outside. They record DNS signatures, fetchable pages, network paths and mail-security records. They do not record:
Latency and traceroute can constrain or suggest likely ingress and network-path characteristics; they cannot establish a local presence, physical PoP, facility ownership or capacity.
Parked and idle domains without content sit outside the live-business readings. Movement figures are direction-only. Coverage bounds are published beside every rate they qualify.
Because of that boundary, every group profile carries an open-question list beside its measurements — the questions the wire cannot answer, each attached to the observation that raises it. An answered question is recorded with its answer; it is not deleted. What we cannot answer stays on the list, visibly open.
exact figures re-cut from the served release each build; the argument above is written to survive them.
| Figure | Value | Base | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| hosting groups profiled (industry map) | 15 | the mapped consolidator set of the industry-map instrument; membership is instrument-specific | 2026-09-06 |
| hosting groups on the integration-depth scoreboard | 15 | hosting-group rows of the integration-depth scoreboard — a set that differs from the industry map's | 2026-09-06 |
| groups in exactly one of the two instruments' sets | 2 | symmetric difference of the two profiled sets | 2026-09-06 |
| platform hub share — minimum | 19.3% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform — integration-depth scoreboard, hosting-group rows with an identified hub | 2026-09-06 |
| platform hub share — maximum | 100% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform — integration-depth scoreboard, hosting-group rows with an identified hub | 2026-09-06 |
| groups with no identified principal platform | 4 | hosting-group rows of the integration-depth scoreboard | 2026-09-06 |
| brand-stack cohesion — minimum | 0.112 | brand-stack cohesion, live-business book, size-weighted per brand — industry-map instrument | 2026-09-06 |
| brand-stack cohesion — maximum | 0.83 | brand-stack cohesion, live-business book, size-weighted per brand — industry-map instrument | 2026-09-06 |
| own-network serving share — minimum | 0% | of web-provisioned domains on the group's own nameservers, the share served from network space the group itself operates — industry-map instrument | 2026-09-06 |
| own-network serving share — maximum | 87% | of web-provisioned domains on the group's own nameservers, the share served from network space the group itself operates — industry-map instrument | 2026-09-06 |
| the minimum group's base | 92,535 | web-provisioned domains on the group's own nameservers — minimum group | 2026-09-06 |
| the maximum group's base | 564,833 | web-provisioned domains on the group's own nameservers — maximum group | 2026-09-06 |
| profiled multi-country groups | 12 | integration-depth scoreboard hosting groups holding at least 10,000 active domains under the ccTLDs of at least 2 national markets | 2026-09-06 |
| multi-country groups still carrying multiple standalone brands | 11 | of the profiled multi-country groups, those with at least 2 brands in a standalone stage (integration-depth scoreboard, brand grain) | 2026-09-06 |
| residual standalone brand count — minimum | 2 | standalone-stage brands per multi-country group carrying a standalone residue | 2026-09-06 |
| residual standalone brand count — maximum | 13 | standalone-stage brands per multi-country group carrying a standalone residue | 2026-09-06 |
| brands in a standalone stage — group at the hub-share floor | 10 | brand roster of the scoreboard group holding the minimum identified hub share | 2026-09-06 |
| brand roster size — group at the hub-share floor | 19 | brand roster of the scoreboard group holding the minimum identified hub share | 2026-09-06 |
| per-brand cohesion within the hub-floor group — minimum | 0.121 | share of a brand's live-business domains on the brand's single most common stack configuration — brands of the minimum-hub-share group with at least 5,000 live-business domains | 2026-09-06 |
| per-brand cohesion within the hub-floor group — maximum | 0.865 | share of a brand's live-business domains on the brand's single most common stack configuration — brands of the minimum-hub-share group with at least 5,000 live-business domains | 2026-09-06 |
| attach comparability floor - derived this release | 74.4% | median page-observation coverage across all 345 group-level books the ATTACH reading carries on this release - the depth-floor construction the platform uses for page-observed rates | 2026-09-06 |
| group-level books behind the attach floor | 345 | books the attach reading carries at group level on this release | 2026-09-06 |
| band groups on the concentration axis before the book-type test | 9 | profiled groups inside the coverage band that ALSO serve an identified platform hub - the set that can be put on the concentration axis at all | 2026-09-06 |
| groups actually compared against concentration | 8 | band groups whose origin-attributed book is more than 50% shared hosting - a book of cloud instances is a different product and is published, not ranked | 2026-09-06 |
| band groups published but not ranked | 1 | band groups whose origin-attributed book is majority cloud infrastructure rather than shared hosting | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - distance between the two coverages | 3.7% | percentage points between the two books' page-observation coverage | 2026-09-06 |
| discordant pairs the exhibit rule refused as unevenly observed | 9 | of the discordant pairs inside the comparable set, those more than 5 coverage points apart | 2026-09-06 |
| profiled groups outside it | 5 | profiled groups whose page-observation coverage is under the derived floor | 2026-09-06 |
| coverage across the band - lowest | 77% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for, as a share of that book | 2026-09-06 |
| coverage across the band - highest | 93.7% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for, as a share of that book | 2026-09-06 |
| coverage of the deepest book outside the band | 31.1% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for, as a share of that book | 2026-09-06 |
| SaaS fingerprint rate across the band - lowest | 46.5% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| SaaS fingerprint rate across the band - highest | 67.5% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| band pairs where the less concentrated group attaches more | 15 | of 28 unordered pairs inside the comparable set | 2026-09-06 |
| group pairs inside the comparable set | 28 | unordered pairs of profiled groups inside the comparable set | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - platform concentration, less concentrated side | 29.5% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - SaaS fingerprint rate, less concentrated side | 58.3% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - measured base, less concentrated side | 924,986 | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - platform concentration, more concentrated side | 90.7% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - SaaS fingerprint rate, more concentrated side | 52% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| the exhibit pair - measured base, more concentrated side | 1,254,456 | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| more concentrated band groups the exhibit's low-concentration side out-attaches | 2 | of 3 band groups whose platform concentration is higher than the exhibit's low side | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - its own site builder, share of its technology-census base | 1.068% | the group's domains in the technology census - a different and larger base than the attach reading's measured book, published here beside it | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - that census base | 1,754,014 | domains in the technology census for that group | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - its own site builder, share of its technology-census base | 0.007% | the group's domains in the technology census | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - all own-builder pages as a share of the attach reading's own base | 1.505% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| United Internet - its own site builder, share of its technology-census base | 2.468% | the group's domains in the technology census - a different and larger base than the attach reading's measured book, published here beside it | 2026-09-06 |
| United Internet - that census base | 3,825,480 | domains in the technology census for that group | 2026-09-06 |
| TransIP (team.blue) - any third-party service | 51.9% | the measured slice of the brand's live-business book - 264,647 domains, 87.5% of the book we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| Register.it (team.blue) - any third-party service | 75.7% | the measured slice of the brand's live-business book - 256,149 domains, 89.3% of the book we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| gandi.net (your.online) - any third-party service | 51.9% | the measured slice of the brand's live-business book - 287,161 domains, 88.9% of the book we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| o2switch (your.online) - any third-party service | 76.6% | the measured slice of the brand's live-business book - 254,303 domains, 95.9% of the book we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - its other measured brands together | 51.4% | the measured slices of the group's other 21 measured brands, weighted by their measured books - 348,998 domains | 2026-09-06 |
| team.blue - attach spread between its two largest brands | 23.8pts | difference in the any-third-party-service rate between the group's two largest brands by live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - attach spread between its two largest brands | 24.7pts | difference in the any-third-party-service rate between the group's two largest brands by live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| attach spread between the ranked groups | 21pts | highest minus lowest any-third-party-service rate across the groups that are compared | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - its two largest brands, share of its book | 57.2% | share of the group's live-business book on its two largest brands | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - its two largest brands, share of its service-running pages | 63.8% | of the group's measured pages running any third-party service, the share on its two largest brands | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - share of the book on its two largest platforms | 83.9% | share of the group's live-business book on the integration-depth scoreboard's brand rows sitting on its two largest platforms - One.com A/S and dogado GmbH - of 1,836,942 domains | 2026-09-06 |
| team.blue - share of the book on its two largest platforms | 34.1% | share of the group's live-business book on the integration-depth scoreboard's brand rows sitting on its two largest platforms - Combell NV and Loopia AB - of 2,440,394 domains | 2026-09-06 |
| United Internet - share of the book on its two largest platforms | 90.4% | share of the group's live-business book on the integration-depth scoreboard's brand rows sitting on its two largest platforms - IONOS SE and Strato AG - of 4,527,984 domains | 2026-09-06 |
| your.online - share of the book on its two largest platforms | 53.6% | share of the group's live-business book on the integration-depth scoreboard's brand rows sitting on its two largest platforms - gandi.net (standalone) and o2switch.net (standalone) - of 1,264,592 domains | 2026-09-06 |
| largest single industry on a named book - the highest of them | 8.1% | share of a group's industry-labelled live-business domains in its single largest industry - the highest such share across the books the article names | 2026-09-06 |
| ten largest industries together - the highest of them | 49.3% | share of a group's industry-labelled live-business domains in its ten largest industries - the highest such share across the books the article names | 2026-09-06 |
| how closely the exhibit pair's industry mixes line up | 0.948 | cosine of the two groups' industry-share vectors over every division either carries | 2026-09-06 |
| industries in both of the exhibit pair's ten largest | 8 | of ten | 2026-09-06 |
| page-observation depth floor for book quality | 16.8% | median page-observation coverage across all 833 group-level books the QUALITY reading carries on this release - a different and much wider population than the attach floor's | 2026-09-06 |
| group-level books behind the quality depth floor | 833 | books the quality reading carries at group level on this release | 2026-09-06 |
| profiled books deep enough to compare on quality | 9 | profiled groups clearing the page-observation depth floor AND the attach coverage band; an identified hub is not required here, which is why this set is not a subset of the plotted band above | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - placeholder share of observed pages | 16.9% | the page-observed slice of the group's live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - decayed share of observed pages | 10.9% | the page-observed slice of the group's live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - the base both shares divide | 1,712,253 | the page-observed slice of the group's live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - placeholder pages on its book | 289,780 | the page-observed slice of the group's live-business book | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - of those, pages on its own platform | 273,680 | placeholder pages whose platform is one of the group's own brands | 2026-09-06 |
| cyber_Folks - any third-party service, the comparable set's highest | 67.5% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| team.blue - any third-party service, next highest | 60.5% | the measured slice of the group's live-business book - the domains on it we have fetched a page for | 2026-09-06 |
| team.blue - platform concentration | 82.1% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform | 2026-09-06 |
| cyber_Folks - platform concentration | 78.7% | share of the group's ns-signature domain book resolving through its principal shared platform | 2026-09-06 |
| group.one - placeholders sitting on its own platform | 94.4% | of that book's placeholder pages, the share whose platform is one of the group's own brands | 2026-09-06 |
| SPF present - European mail-carrying book | 81.8% | the mail-carrying book of European national markets | 2026-09-06 |
| SPF set to hard-fail - European mail-carrying book | 29.2% | the mail-carrying book of European national markets | 2026-09-06 |
| the mail-carrying base both shares divide | 19,465,442 | the mail-carrying book of European national markets | 2026-09-06 |
| profiled groups with a classifiable direction on both layers | 15 | profiled groups whose net cross-group movement clears 1.0% of their own gross movement on both the control-plane and the hosting layer | 2026-09-06 |
| of those, groups whose two layers point in opposite directions | 7 | of the profiled groups classified on both layers | 2026-09-06 |
A group is compared only where its page-observation coverage clears the derived floor AND the majority of its origin-attributed book is shared hosting rather than cloud infrastructure. Every other reading stands and is published here; only the ranking is withheld, with the reason on the row. Coverage is the share of the group's live-business book we have fetched a page for; the shared-hosting share divides by the domains carrying an origin-network attribution, and reads the origin network's own classification rather than the product a group sells. THREE ATTACH READINGS are served, all on the same measured base: any third-party service on the page, a service indicating buying intent, and a service that is paid for. The article's ordering claims are made on the FIRST of them and say so; the other two are here so the reading can be checked against them. A hoster's own site builder is detected and counted in all three; the builder rows in the panel above bound how much of the exhibit's gap that could be. The last two columns are a FOURTH reading, the value ladder: 'runs nothing' is the share of the measured book carrying no product the ladder rates - the complement of the buying-intent column, not of the any-service one - and beside it, of the customers who do run something, the share whose highest-rated product is a paid one. They are read only for the groups the article names.
| group | status | any third-party service | buying intent | paid service | runs nothing | paid top product, of those running any | platform hub share | shared-hosting share of the book | page-observation coverage | measured base |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cyber_Folks | compared | 67.5% | 74.8% | 65.1% | 25.2% | 87.0% | 78.7% | 96.5% | 83.2% | 257,855 |
| team.blue | compared | 60.5% | 69.9% | 48.6% | 30.1% | 69.5% | 82.1% | 77.4% | 88.8% | 1,788,539 |
| your.online | compared | 58.3% | 67.3% | 51.4% | 32.7% | 76.3% | 29.5% | 79.8% | 90.0% | 924,986 |
| United Internet | compared | 57.0% | 62.3% | 52.1% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 93.2% | 81.7% | 81.3% | 3,064,406 |
| OVHcloud | cloud-heavy book, published not ranked | 55.0% | 65.8% | 49.6% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 100.0% | 12.3% | 87.5% | 1,463,295 |
| Aruba | compared | 53.9% | 62.5% | 50.2% | 37.5% | 80.3% | 90.6% | 88.1% | 86.4% | 835,439 |
| iomart | compared | 53.4% | 63.5% | 46.7% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 93.2% | 84.8% | 77.0% | 5,478 |
| group.one | compared | 52.0% | 57.3% | 46.2% | 42.7% | 80.6% | 90.7% | 88.5% | 93.7% | 1,254,456 |
| Miss Group | compared | 46.5% | 54.5% | 41.2% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 19.3% | 70.1% | 92.5% | 430,884 |
| Namespace | no hub identified | 35.0% | 44.2% | 29.0% | outside the named set | outside the named set | no identified hub | 63.2% | 78.5% | 79,302 |
| Tucows | below the coverage floor | 55.9% | 63.5% | 51.3% | outside the named set | outside the named set | no identified hub | 50.5% | 9.2% | 15,227 |
| Team Internet | below the coverage floor | 44.7% | 55.6% | 36.6% | outside the named set | outside the named set | no identified hub | 41.7% | 27.7% | 11,337 |
| hosting.com (fka World Host Group) | below the coverage floor | 39.8% | 43.7% | 38.1% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 65.5% | 95.8% | 12.9% | 71,696 |
| Newfold Digital | below the coverage floor | 37.8% | 41.9% | 31.9% | outside the named set | outside the named set | 75.5% | 48.1% | 10.6% | 406,754 |
| GoDaddy | below the coverage floor | 23.6% | 25.9% | 13.6% | outside the named set | outside the named set | no identified hub | 12.1% | 31.1% | 7,446,398 |
The two largest brands of each loose group the article names, by live-business book, on the brand-grain attach reading - the same any-third-party-service reading the group rows above are ranked on, served at brand grain by the saas-adoption tool - each with the base it divides and the share of its book we have fetched a page for; and, for the group the article says it of, the rest of its measured brands taken together, weighted by their measured books. A brand under the brand-level reading's own inclusion floor is counted on the remainder row as not read, never folded to a zero. The between-group spread the article compares these against is the difference between the highest and lowest ranked group rates in the table above; both spreads are figures in the panel, and the article's sentence is those figures compared.
| brand | group | any third-party service | page-observation coverage | measured base | share of the group's book |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TransIP | team.blue | 51.9% | 87.5% | 264,647 | 15.0% |
| Register.it | team.blue | 75.7% | 89.3% | 256,149 | 14.2% |
| gandi.net | your.online | 51.9% | 88.9% | 287,161 | 31.4% |
| o2switch | your.online | 76.6% | 95.9% | 254,303 | 25.8% |
| your.online - its other 21 measured brands together (15 more not read) | your.online | 51.4% | 87.1% | 348,998 | 39.0% |
Per group named in the article's buyer sentence: the share of its live-business book, on the integration-depth scoreboard's brand rows, that sits on its two largest platforms - a hub where a brand has been moved onto one, the brand itself where it stands alone - with the platforms named and the base the share divides. This is a different base from the concentration axis above, which reads the principal platform's share of the ns-signature book.
| group | largest platform | second platform | two largest together | platforms in the book | base |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Internet | IONOS SE (63.7%) | Strato AG (26.7%) | 90.4% | 5 | 4,527,984 |
| group.one | One.com A/S (68.3%) | dogado GmbH (15.7%) | 83.9% | 9 | 1,836,942 |
| your.online | gandi.net (standalone) (29.2%) | o2switch.net (standalone) (24.4%) | 53.6% | 18 | 1,264,592 |
| team.blue | Combell NV (18.8%) | Loopia AB (15.3%) | 34.1% | 15 | 2,440,394 |
Every book the comparison rests on is a broad small-business mix rather than a concentrated vertical: no single industry is a tenth of any of them, and it takes their ten largest together to reach about half the book. Shares divide by the group's industry-labelled live-business domains, which is a subset of its book and is published beside them. The similarity column is a shape comparison of two books' industry shares against the exhibit's less concentrated side, where 1.0 is identical. The two books the article puts side by side share 8 of their ten largest industries - Specialised construction, Human health, Education, Sports & recreation, Other personal services, Creative & performing arts, Membership organisations, Computer programming & IT services - and the four trades the article names sit, on your.online and group.one respectively, at: builders (Specialised construction) at 1 and 6; dentists (Human health) at 2 and 1; schools (Education) at 4 and 5; sports clubs (Sports & recreation) at 5 and 4.
| group | largest industry | its share | ten largest together | industry-labelled domains | similarity to your.online |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| team.blue | Human health | 5.7% | 42.0% | 792,106 | 0.976 |
| group.one | Human health | 6.6% | 49.3% | 572,254 | 0.948 |
| your.online | Specialised construction | 7.3% | 42.9% | 404,454 | - |
| Aruba | Accommodation | 8.1% | 41.7% | 323,440 | 0.891 |
| cyber_Folks | Information services & web portals | 6.8% | 43.6% | 118,210 | 0.903 |
Data version 2026-09-06 · ranges are extrema of the profiled set on the named instrument; membership moves between releases and the two instruments' sets differ — every range names its instrument. Every figure here is derived from the served release by this brief's own derivation script; nothing on this page is hand-typed.
The figures above are served by the HostingBrain connector: the industry-map readings by the consolidation-landscape tool, the hub-share readings by the integration-depth tool, the attach rates and their coverage by the saas-adoption tool, the page-state split by the book-health tool, the mail-posture line by the email-security tool and the movement directions by the migration-flows tool (all but the last on the connector's paid tiers — the tier table on the get-started page says which). Ask it:
"For the profiled hosting groups, show platform concentration, cohesion and own-network serving share with book types and as-of dates."
"Show SaaS attachment for a market or group with its measured base and coverage."
"For a hosting group, split the pages carrying no site into placeholders and decayed pages, with the page-observed base."
Group-level profiles and the per-group open-question lists are part of the briefing product.