WebDAV on Windows: The 3-Layer Speed Test Nobody Talks About

When you mount a WebDAV drive on Windows, three layers of software stand between you and your files. Each one can be the bottleneck. I tested ScsDriver against rclone and the Windows built-in mini-redirector at each layer.

The 3 Layers

Layer 1: WebDAV client. The piece of software that speaks WebDAV to your server. rclone, Cyberduck, and ScsDriver all live here.

Layer 2: Mount driver. Translates WebDAV operations into filesystem calls. On Windows, you have two options: the built-in mini-redirector (webdav.dll), or a third-party FUSE layer like WinFSP that rclone uses.

Layer 3: Windows cache. The Windows file system cache, plus any user-mode caching the client adds on top.

I tested each layer in isolation by listing a folder with 1000 small files, copying a 2 GB file, and reading a 100 MB file sequentially.

Test 1: List 1000 Small Files

This is where the built-in Windows mini-redirector falls apart. The mini-redirector has to make 1000 separate PROPFIND requests to the WebDAV server, one per file. With my Nextcloud at home (1 Gbps LAN), this took 28 seconds with the built-in client.

rclone with WinFSP batches these into a single PROPFIND with depth infinity, completing in 1.4 seconds. ScsDriver uses the built-in mini-redirector but pre-warms the cache, completing in 3.2 seconds.

If you work with code repos or photo libraries, this is the test that matters most. rclone wins.

Test 2: Copy a 2 GB File

This test stresses the upload path. With ScsDriver using the mini-redirector, the file copied at 95 MB/s. With rclone using its own VFS, the file copied at 110 MB/s. The difference is that rclone uses HTTP/2 multiplexing and chunked uploads, while the mini-redirector uses single-stream PUT.

For backing up large media files, rclone has the edge.

Test 3: Read a 100 MB File Sequentially

Here ScsDriver and rclone both hit around 200 MB/s, limited by my SSD read speed. The Windows mini-redirector caches aggressively, so once the file is in the cache, subsequent reads are local.

For video editing, all three clients perform identically after the first read.

The Verdict

If you mostly read files: ScsDriver is fine. The price ($5.5 lifetime) is hard to beat, and the install is the simplest of the three.

If you browse directories with thousands of files: use rclone. The mini-redirector will frustrate you.

If you upload large files: rclone is faster, and has auto-resume for flaky connections.

If you are a developer with a self-hosted Nextcloud and mostly want to access code: try ScsDriver first. The 3-second reconnect after sleep is worth it.

Why ScsDriver At $5.5 Lifetime Is Still Worth Considering

At $5.5 lifetime, ScsDriver is cheaper than a single month of Dropbox. For my use case (read-mostly, code editing, occasional file uploads), it has been the right tool for the past 100 days.

For users who need rclone-level performance, the free rclone is the better choice. But for users who want a Windows-native mount that just works, ScsDriver is the most cost-effective option in 2026.

How To Run This Test Yourself

Pick a folder on your WebDAV server with at least 1000 files. Time how long it takes to open in Explorer with each client. That single number will tell you which client is right for you.

Drop a comment with your results. I am curious if anyone else sees the 20x difference I see on the listing test.