T-Mobile vs Verizon vs AT&T vs Sprint: which carrier had fastest LTE at the Super Bowl?

T-Mobile vs Verizon vs AT&T vs Sprint: which carrier had fastest LTE at the Super Bowl?
Super Bowl 53 is history and while it was more of a defense grind than an offense effort that we prefer watching, it was a BIG game.

And while the New England Patriots and Tom Brady were grinding it on the field, thousands at the stadium were eager to share the special moments from the game and the half-time show on social media.

This was a perfect opportunity for carriers to advertize their service and provide the absolute fastest 4G LTE network. So... which carrier did it, which was the fastest carrier at Super Bowl 53?

Which was the faster carrier at Super Bowl 53?


Well, you probably would not be surprised to hear the name of the carrier that won the contest...


Yep, it was T-Mobile, with average speeds of the whopping 101.53Mbps for downloads and 31.16 for uploads.

Interestingly, Sprint was the second-fastest with an average of 93.28Mbps for downloads, but an incredibly slow 2.55Mbps for uploads. Verizon's download speeds ranked third with an average of 72.51Mbps, while AT&T came up last with a score of 34.88Mbps.

In case you were wondering whether those measurements are accurate, they come from popular network testing app Ookla and include more than 100 tests from more than 10 different devices.

Half-time show speed test!



FEATURED VIDEO

18 Comments

1. monkeyb

Posts: 411; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

If im not wrong, Sprint uses higher frequency bands that helps it give more speeds on a short distance. This coupled with small cells tailored for superbowl will make them look nice in these tests. From what I know, in reality, Sprint has the worst coverage and speed.

4. seantn4

Posts: 50; Member since: Dec 11, 2018

Depends on the city. The city I'm in Sprint is the fastest, but 3rd for coverage with Tombile in Last for coverage and speed. Verizon is First for coverage 2nd in speed. Att is 2nd in coverage and 3rd in speed. But on national scale you are correct.

12. lsutigers

Posts: 832; Member since: Mar 08, 2009

Agreed, it really depends on the city. In my area, Verizon is coverage king but their speeds are not very good. Sprint and T-Mobile are neck and neck for the fastest network but Sprint’s coverage is far superior to T-Mobile’s here. AT&T is decent, their coverage is on par with Sprint’s but their speeds are by far the slowest.

17. monkeyb

Posts: 411; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

I think ill take my statement back in terms of speed (If you are getting good coverage). I know some cities have good coverage for Sprint but I was more referring to traveling around the city. Example in Chicago, its one thing in Downtown but a completely different story while traveling back and forth from the suburbs. I had a sprint LTE hotspot I used for work and the signal used to keep dropping so much that I had to use my ATT phone hotspot to get the work done.

18. seantn4

Posts: 50; Member since: Dec 11, 2018

I can respect that. Personally i have never been to Chicago, but I have heard that about coverage out there. Hopefully as Sprint rolls out the 2.5 spectrum that fixes it.

11. JesseJames

Posts: 226; Member since: Feb 22, 2015

Nah in Atlanta and Georgia in general sprint speeds are rock solid, so this isn't some random fluke.

2. Godlymansean

Posts: 337; Member since: Apr 14, 2017

Ouch. Figured since Verizon was the sponsor they'd have that on lock, but oh well.

5. AngelicusMaximus

Posts: 679; Member since: Dec 20, 2017

I doubt anyone who was getting 72 & 19 was complaining.

7. Venom

Posts: 3429; Member since: Dec 14, 2017

I'll take consistency over irregular speeds. As long as Verizon speeds are consistent, I don't really see much complaint.

3. L0n3n1nja

Posts: 1553; Member since: Jul 12, 2016

But how congested was each network? Sprint is bleeding customers, did they even have enough there to stress the network?

8. Venom

Posts: 3429; Member since: Dec 14, 2017

Good question, that's what I was wondering as well. There's a lot of factors that could come into play here.

13. lsutigers

Posts: 832; Member since: Mar 08, 2009

Sprint still has 50+ million subscribers and a ton of corporate customers so I would bet yes.

6. Joosty

Posts: 471; Member since: Mar 14, 2013

TMobile had the best commercials as well.

15. lsutigers

Posts: 832; Member since: Mar 08, 2009

Right, right...that’s why I said that Sprint still has a lot of corporate customers, you know, the ones who pay that kind of money for tickets. And before you go assuming that only poor people use Sprint and T-Mobile (which is quite douchey of you) I know plenty of wealthy people that still use Sprint. Not sure about T-Mobile but don’t assume rich people only use Verizon and AT&T.

9. tedkord

Posts: 17318; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

That must have been a hell of a contest. If imagine most folks spent more time texting and playing games on their phone than watching the punting contest on the field.

10. Mreveryphone

Posts: 1817; Member since: Apr 22, 2014

I was there and can confirm speeds were great at the stadium during the game for T-Mobile.

16. BuffaloSouce unregistered

Wow... Your word is all the info anyone needs...

14. FerneyZan

Posts: 114; Member since: Jul 21, 2010

Keep in mind that the cheapest ticket for the Superbowl was about 3400+ per seat about up to 8to9000k per seat. Meaning that most people at the stadium that went to watch the game live isn't going to be using cheap carriers like Sprint and t-mobile.. They were most likely using Verizon and AT&T since overall, those two are the most stable and reliable around the nation with much better indoor penetration..

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.