Get pro WordPress tips or your money back!

Performance of the Best WordPress Hosting Companies Compared

When it comes to choosing the best WordPress Hosting, I’m bound and determined to find out which company is providing the most value. There are three major components that make up a great host in my opinion, and those are 1) Performance, 2) Knowledge, Speed, and Reliability of Support, and 3) Pricing and the overall product offering.

For this initial run, I compared several shared WordPress hosting companies. I plan to continue to add to this list and update it in 2016 as well so that people have a go-to resource for choosing the best WordPress hosting company. Here are the hosts I’ve tested in no particular order:

Name Account Type Cost Per Month
Siteground SiteGround Startup $3.95
Inmotion Hosting Inmotion Hosting WPS-500S $2.95
A2 Hosting Logo A2 Hosting Lite $3.92
green-geeks-logo GreenGeeks Standard $3.95
Bluehost Bluehost Standard Shared $2.95
Site5 Site5 HostPro $8.95
Media Temple MediaTemple Grid Server $20.00
Dreamhost DreamHost Standard Shared $7.95
Eleven2 Eleven2 S-200 $8.00
Arvixe Hosting Arvixe Hosting Personal Class $4.00
Hostgator HostGator* Hatchling $7.16
GoDaddy GoDaddy Deluxe $8.99

Today I want to take a look at how many of the top WordPress hosting companies measure up from purely a performance standpoint.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that having the fastest servers doesn’t make a host the best WordPress hosting company, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. If you’re looking for the best WordPress host for your website, the data here’s a great place to start your research.

So Who REALLY Has the Best WordPress Hosting?

If you’re just looking for our opinion, the best WordPress hosting companies for shared hosting on the market today are:

  1. SiteGround
  2. InMotion Hosting
  3. A2 Hosting

Most of the hosts we evaluated performed pretty well, but those are the ones we consistently recommend to our customers and friends looking for affordable, fast WordPress hosting. If you’re interested in the data-driven reasoning behind our opinion, keep reading while I’ll break it down and explain how we ran our tests.

The Performance Testing Experiment

Testing speed and performance of servers in remote locations introduces some fun and interesting challenges. When I first set out to run these tests, I thought I’d run benchmarks for an hour or two and then be done and would be totally ready to crown the fastest performing WordPress host.

That wasn’t the case at all.

Eliminating as many variables as possible from the test ended up being a lot more work than I anticipated, but the end result is some seriously concrete data.

To run the tests I used a load testing service called Load Impact. Load Impact fires up an Amazon server that you choose, and begins to send traffic to the site, increasing slowly over a certain amount of time.

For this particular test I sent 50 users to a testing site, increasing from one user to 50 concurrent users, over the span of 10 minutes. 50 concurrent users is a nice baseline test for a shared host. Once you hit that benchmark on a fairly consistent basis, it’s probably time to start exploring VPS and Managed WordPress hosting options. Traffic increases steadily throughout the timeframe until 50 users are visiting the site all at the same time.

Here are some of the precautions I took to keep the tests as fair as possible, even though each of these sites are spread out all over the United States:

  • Each WordPress site is an identical install of WordPress 3.6 with the TwentyThirteen theme installed and a number of posts and pages (same number of posts and pages on every site).
  • I used the same domain name for every testing site with a different subdomain. I didn’t want the chance of any latency showing up in results because each testing site had a separate domain with a potentially separate registrar.
  • For all hosting accounts located on servers on the West Coast, I used a testing server located in Ashburn, VA. And for all hosting accounts living on servers on the East Coast, I used a testing server located in Portland, Oregon.
  • I did everything possible to make the physical distance traveled the same across all tests.
  • All caching and plugins were disabled on each site
  • Each test was run 5 times with the best result of each posted here.

Overall I ended up with a really nice set of data that gives some very good insight into which hosts make performance a priority, and which hosts have some work to do.

So Which Is the Best WordPress Hosting Company?

Without further ado, here’s what I found from each host. The green line represents the increase in traffic, and the blue line represents the response time of the site as traffic increases.

Inmotion Hosting

Inmotion Hosting’s scores really took me by surprise. With one of the fastest minimum response times, and by far the fastest max response time, InMotion stayed right around 600ms for the entire test, which is really impressive. The graph looks to have more hills and valleys than most, but that’s because it stayed so close to the median response time for the entire test. The variance from highest response time to lowest response time is roughly 388ms, which is the best in the group.

Testing Server Location: Portland, OR
InMotion Hosting Server Location: Washington DC
Max Response Time: 836.78ms
Minimum Response Time: 478.42ms

Inmotion Hosting Performance Chart

Click here to see the full Inmotion Hosting report from Load Impact

SiteGround

SiteGround was one of our top performers, and is especially impressive considering the $3.95 price point for their StartUp hosting tier. It does have a limitation of one website at that price point, but considering the average response time was ~700ms all the way to 50 concurrent users with no real hiccups, SiteGround offers a great value.

Testing Server Location: Dallas, TX
SiteGround Server Location: Chicago, IL
Max Response Time: 1.79 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 669.9 milliseconds

SiteGround Hosting Performance Score

Click here to see the full report from Load Impact

A2 Hosting

A2 Hosting makes some pretty bold claims on their website, claiming 300% faster load times with WordPress. So do the results match the claim? A2 did pretty well overall, but definitely not 300% faster than the competition. Many of the hosts listed here which don’t even make claims to be WordPress hosts performed better. Their minimum load time of 455ms is definitely impressive, and it was only slightly higher than that when the test ended. Overall they had a strong showing.

Testing Server Location: Ashburn, VA
A2 Server Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Max Response Time: 1.12 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 455.17ms

A2 Hosting Performance Chart

Click here to see the full A2 Hosting report from Load Impact

Bluehost

Bluehost’s performance was lackluster. As traffic increased so did response time, almost following the same steep climb. Even at lower user counts the response time jumped around quite a bit, ranging anywhere from 1 to 3.5 seconds with only 10 active users. As Bluehost approached the 20 user mark load times skyrocketed to over 10 seconds. They did come back down, but performance was still highly inconsistent with huge variances from one second to the next.

Testing Server Location: Ashburn, VA
Bluehost Server Location: Provo, UT
Max Response Time: 10.64 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 915.53 milliseconds

Bluehost Hosting Performance Score

Click here to see the full Bluehost report from Load Impact

Eleven2

Eleven2 is likely the smallest hosting company that we tested on this list, although I don’t have the date to confirm that. That said, performance-wise they do pretty well as a shared hosting provider. With site load times of just under a second throughout the entire test, Eleven2 isn’t a leader, but they’re definitely no slouch. The $8 per month price is only available when you pre-pay for a year.

Testing Server Location: Dallas, TX
SiteGround Server Location: Wichita, KS
Max Response Time: 2.01 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 898.61 milliseconds

Eleven2 Hosting Performance Report

Click here to see the full report from Load Impact

Site5

As noted above, because of a DNS propagation issue we actually made a mistake with one of our tests so we ran Site5 through the gamut again, and again they did very well. While their minimum response time was higher than initially reported, their max response time was lower than we initially reported. Throughout the majority of the ten minute load testing, Site5’s server response time stayed steady at 750ms to 1 second with only a handful of deviations.

Testing Server Location: Portland, OR
Site5 Server Location: Atlanta, GA
Max Response Time: 1.95 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 704.41 milliseconds

Site5 Hosting Performance Score

Click here to see the full Site5 report from Load Impact (Updated)

MediaTemple

MediaTemple Grid Server is a bit pricier at $20 per month than the other hosts featured in this post, but technically it’s still considered a shared host which is why we included it. While not boasting the fastest load times, aside from a strange hiccup at the very beginning of the test, MediaTemple was rock solid all the way to scale. Variances were 2-300 milliseconds but load times generally stayed at almost exactly 1 second, regardless of the number of users.

Testing Server Location: Ashburn, VA
Media Temple Server Location: Los Angeles, CA
Max Response Time: 4.54 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 934.07 milliseconds

MediaTemple Hosting Performance Score

Click here to see the full MediaTemple report from Load Impact 

HostGator

HostGator’s server performance looked a lot like a pattern you’d see from a healthy EKG, until it completely flatlined. The only problem is that for web performance, we don’t want to see a line with a a lot of ups and downs, flat lines are great unless they fall off the grid completely a la GoDaddy. While HostGator returned the fastest response time of any host, it’s a little misleading because the server had essentially quit at that point and then stopped responding completely. Basically it was one last hurrah before it called it a day.

*I was happy to see that my HostGator account was housed outside of the Provo, UT datacenter where Bluehost resides so we could get a more true host to host comparison.

Testing Server Location: Portland, OR
HostGator Server Location: Charlotte, NC
Max Response Time: 10.16 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 258.07 milliseconds

HostGator Performance Score

Click here to see the full HostGator report from Load Impact

Arvixe

Arvixe has been in the hosting business for quite a while servicing other open source communities like Joomla and Drupal, and have just started shifting their efforts to the WordPress space in the last year or so. Their results here are respectable. They aren’t blow your mind fast, but they do seem solid all the way up to the 50 concurrent user mark. They had one small spike, but it recovered very quickly and the server finished the test in heroic fashion.

Testing Server Location: Palo Alto, CA
Arvixe Server Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Max Response Time 2.93 seconds
Minimum Response Time 1.06 seconds

arvixe-hosting-web

Click here to see the full Arvixe report from Load Impact

DreamHost

While at a first Glance DreamHost’s results may seem inconsistent, you’ll notice that there are more bumps in the road because the extremes are much more controlled. So variances in a handful of milliseconds show up as jumps in the graph. Overall DreamHost was solid from beginning to end. It didn’t report the lowest lows, but it also kept things in check as traffic increased, without having massive jumps in response times. DreamHost had a strong showing.

Testing Server Location: Ashburn, VA
DreamHost Server Location: Los Angeles, CA
Max Response Time: 3.74 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 621.87 milliseconds

dreamhost-hosting-web

Click here to see the full DreamHost report from Load Impact

GreenGeeks Hosting

GreenGeeks didn’t do badly at all in the performance testing. After a big initial spike in response time, the server settled down and returned the sub one second response times that we like to see. There was a bit more variance throughout the test than we normally like to see, but nothing that would indicate any type of major issue. For the most part things were pretty solid.

Testing Sever Location: Chicago, IL
Green Geeks Server Location: Dallas, TX
Max Response Time: 4.7 seconds
Minimum Response Time: 571.33 ms

Green Geeks Hosting Web

Click here to see the full Green Geeks report from Load Impact

GoDaddy

GoDaddy surprised me in more ways than one. GoDaddy started at a blazing 483 ms response time, but once traffic hit 25 users, it essentially fell off the face of the earth. The report lists times of above 4 minutes, and that may be true, but it almost looks like the server became completely unresponsive or started rejecting connections. The load test reported a number of failed attempts to connect to the server. While GoDaddy shined at lower traffic levels, it fell apart completely as traffic passed the 25 user mark.

Godaddy reached out and asked that I clarify the results of their test. This is what they had to say:”We use a software security layer called Sentinel. Because of it’s conservative settings, the software detected the load test as a DoS attack since all the LoadImpact traffic was coming from one IP, and banned it for 5 minutes.”I believe they have thresholds set at a painfully low level if they consider 25 users a DDOS attack. That means one small business sharing an article internally could take down a site.

Testing Server Location: Ashburn, VA
GoDaddy Server Location: Phoenix, AZ
Max Response Time: 4.1 minutes
Minimum Response Time: 483.08 milliseconds

GoDaddy Hosting Performance Score

Click here to see the full GoDaddy report from Load Impact

So which shared WordPress hosting company performed the fastest?

Based strictly on the performance data from each webhost, there were three hosts that really stood out in the group. Each of the following hosts had an average page load time of below one second throughout the entire course of the test, all the way to 50 concurrent users. Stay tuned for the next update where we re-evaluate all of these options and add many more.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of the data you see here. Anything that stands out to you? Anything that surprised you?

Let’s talk it out 🙂

Disclaimer: All hosting accounts are owned and paid for by us.

Enjoy this post? Never miss another one.

485 Comments

  1. Indrahosting

    Nice article about web hosting company. I always use blue host for web hosting.

  2. Muhammad Saad Khan

    Hi Ryan,

    Its believe its been a while since you have updated the piece because there are many new companies have chipped in WordPress hosting in recent past. I represent Cloudways. A unique managed hosting environment in a fraction of a cost. I wish that you give us a chance to go through rigorous testing. And we would love to see how we stand among the crowd.

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hi Muhammad, it has been quite a while since we updated this, and we plan to add more in the future and update the results here. Finding the time is the tricky part 🙂

  3. Irfan Malik

    Hey Ryan thanks for this much detailed article, but i am thinking to go with http://www.fatcow.com their cowfat plan i really ,liked it and i heard alot about them please can you have a look on fatcow and suggest me should i go with them or not.
    Thanks

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hi Irfan, we don’t have much experience with FatCow. I know in some parts of the world they’re more popular than others. Their server software is fairly outdated in terms of PHP and MySQL versions, and the few clients we know who have used them have eventually ended up moving onto other hosts. Not sure if that’s helpful or not. Good luck!

  4. Chad Raymond

    Is there any way of doing a comparison based on reliability? After four years of managing a blog on WordPress.org without a single technical problem, I picked up a sponsor who would pay the cost of hosting elsewhere in exchange for ad placement. “Bluehost” was splashed across WordPress.org as the hosting service of choice, so I switched to that. After only two weeks my site is down because of a Bluehost server crash. I search the web and find your reportage here. Wish I had come here first.

  5. Ron Piper

    While it is more expensive than everything on your list, have you tried WPengine? The fact they focus solely on wordpress means their server setup and caching is optimised for wordpress and IMO this is the single most contributing factor to wordpress site speed. what do you think?

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hi Ron,

      WP Engine will perform faster than all of these. These are all shared hosting providers and we wanted to keep similar tests together. You’re absolutely right though, WP Engine does have a nice setup for hosting WordPress and making it fast.

      Thanks for stopping by 🙂

  6. Ben Weeks

    Thanks for your reviews and work. I got inmotion because of your tips. Their prices have gone up since your review, but still if speed is as good, it’s worth it. I had media temple before which has great UI/UX and a great reputation among designers. But seeing the speed/price is not as competitive as others, I moved to inmotion instead to test a new site concept.

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Right on! If you run into any issues or if we can answer any questions for you just let us know. We know some of the folks at Inmotion pretty well so if you run into problems we can help get you to the right people. Thanks for stopping by, Ben.

  7. Scott

    This is fine for a quick test, but elsewhere I’m hearing of a lot of downtime on several of these services. That might be harder to measure, of course.

  8. John Rogers

    While I think you have a lot of the usual suspects, there are definitely hosts that can compete that aren’t on this list. Nexcess is one of the best and fasted shared WordPress hosts out there. Great service and support and they never treat you like a number in their ledgers.

  9. Joanne Moore

    Hi there,

    Thanks very much for your article – we are having a few issues with our website hosting company and are looking for a new one. I found your article on Google and it has been most useful in finding a new host.

    Quick question – have you ever had any experience of WP Engine? I’ve heard a lot of people raving about it on the internet, but it is also quite expensive.

    Look forward to your reply.

    Thanks very much!

    Joanne Moore

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hi Joanne,

      All of the hosting companies in this article are shared web hosts, and WP Engine fits into a group called managed wordpress hosts. We have a lot of clients who use WP Engine and really like them. We use Pagely as the web host for this site and we’ve been really happy with them as well.

  10. Peter

    Hi,
    what a great comparison, thank you. We are thinking to move to a new hosting provider. We usually get load times from 1.5s-3.5s depending on location of user. Our hosting is based in Slovakia(Europe 🙂 ) We will change the website template to wordpress powered so this article as a great help.

    I wonder if you did tests from US only. Maybe it could be more valuable as measurement to test the providers from different location. If guys here have sites that get users from around the world.

    Thank you
    Peter

  11. Leslie

    Just an FYI, BlueHost’s $4.95 rate is only for the first year. If you want to keep their unlimited plan it jumps to $11.99 per month. For a small business it may be quite a shock to see an annual price go from $60 to almost $150. Here is the link to their “regular pricing” https://my.bluehost.com/hosting/help/141

  12. Congo Techin

    This is a great post bro.Thanks
    My wordpress blog is hosted on ipage.com and everything seems to go well with them.
    why dont you include ipage in your review list?

  13. Hamad Azam

    Very informative for a entrant. I actually have learnt plenty and feel equipped to create a choice concerning hosting my new web log.

  14. Ryan

    I’m a bit surprised that WP-Engine was not brought up in this article. I have used a few of the hosting companies you listed, such as Bluehost, Dreamhost, Inmotion and Host Gator. Except Dreamhost, my experience has been good with the others. I’ve never had any good experiences with Dreamhost. However, I don’t think any of those can compare to WP-Engine. It may be a bit more expensive, but you get what you pay for. It runs very fast, and is one of the more secure WordPress hosting platforms you can find. The part I like the most, is the excellent support. Every time I’ve had a problem, not only were they friendly and helpful, but would do things for me when all I asked was for direction. So they are always willing to help you with whatever you need.

    So I would definitely check out WP-Engine when you get a chance. I personally think it should be at top of this list. If anything it always good to put another option out there. Good article!

  15. smithcole

    Thanks to share this blog. Nice hosting companies and their performance are given above. All sites are good, but I had hosted my website last month from “myasp.net” site which is good for me.So in future I must try one of these.

  16. smithcole

    Thanks to share this blog. Nice hosting companies and their performance are given above. All sites are good, but I had hosted my website last month from “myasp.net” site which is good for me. So in future I must try one of these.

  17. Rajendra Reddy

    siteground is best for wordpress interms of service and uptime

  18. Shane Weaver

    So it seems that all three of your “recommendations” are affiliate sites. Is there anything outside of the monetary benefit you receive that makes them a good choice? I’m looking for a good, fast, reliable WP host but I want a real review.

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hey Shane, thanks for taking the time to comment. We’ve addressed this a whole bunch of times throughout the comments. The only reason we have affiliate links is to fund the research and for more research. The results are posted to a third party, and our recommendations are based on those results. We do use affiliate links but they don’t shape the results or data in any way, so you can take everything in the article at face value.

  19. RR

    Interesting results…

    Few things. As many noted a baseline template really might not be applicable in testing due to the lacking of function in the template.

    In my experience with webs in general there are several matters when it comes to DB driven PHP applications.

    For example. Some hosts DB servers are well overloaded as well and some not. Some keep the data local to a given server, some keep them as subnets etc.

    In other words, a network topography can make an enormous difference in the performance as of course does the CPU, RAM a site sits on. Many host providers have hardware that is older. Often in fact what is done is they rotate the older technology into the cheaper servers eventually removing them from service.

    The template really does not make a whole lot of difference when benchmarking.

    The data (DB) does as does the of course CPU / RAM system loading.

    If I might suggest:

    A few plugins that eat a bit of RAM and do some decent amount of work would be in order. For example perhaps a directory plugin loaded up with several hundred faux entries.

    And a whole slew of articles that the page will pull in, Perhaps 40 posts across 4 categories (10 per).

    50 concurrent users is somewhat low for testing basis as well, 100-250 is a better indicator of what a web can expect, thats the low side A more uniform test would be, 100, 250, 500, 1000 concurrent sessions.

    This will show which ones really handle system loading and balancing well on the minimal hosting accounts and where the servers / database access really starts to curve.

    Lastly, if you are running 5 tests against all hosts and taking the best the worst should also be shown. This gives the reader a dynamic of average performance. Optimally all 5 tests would be merged to show average data.

    It can be really difficult to get a decent assessment of hosts and even though some boast they are WP favored most are simply doing really minor tweaks in Apache and/or PHP, almost never to mySQL.

    For example, not too long back a local operation asked me to check out their WP site because of performance issues. They could not understand why one site they had on it performed quite well yet this other one did not. Both sites were on an SSD hosting plan. The difference was the database access. One site’s organizational structure resulted in less complex queries to the DB Server and the other quite complex. The Database server was completely external and thus even with the 300% boost with the SSD reading the varied PHP files performance was completely compromised due to complex DB queries across a Intranet and this was not “cheap” hosting.

    A very complex site does not necessarily have to have complex queries if the structure of the site relating to the queries is understood. Unfortunately thats seldom the case. Alot of plugins, theme’s etc, have developers that just think “Get the data” .vs. get the data optimally. Optimally WP would not do what it does. Queries should be queued and compiled then saved. That code can be quite complex, I actually have exactly that but it was built around Joomla framework and not WP.

    In the case of what I was asked to look into, I went into the WP theme they used and wrote some SQL queries against their data based on specific navigation at the site. That locks down some flexibility but the performance curve was instantly corrected.

    More often than not, thats the place performance gets creamed and what the cache engines end up really mitigating more so than any actual PHP processing.

    For sites where there are quite a bit of concurrent sessions going on using one of the cache components with an SSD hosting platform can really jerk performance upwards.

    The optimal WP setup I played with. We have a dedicated server with Codero, awesome hosting firm. All of those mentioned in this article are not in this league. Dedicated server with SSD. I through some pretty complex data resulting in complex queries at it and from a simple site to a highly complex one the differences are simply moot.

    Lastly,

    It would be VERY cool if you came up with as I stated, something that stresses processing a bit and the DB accordingly. Re run the benchmarks.

    Then ask the readership to set up an install on their host platforms so you can bench against those. Also advisable to use latest WP release.

  20. John Adam

    My blog http://wpvkp.com/ is 2 year and some month old, in the first year it was hosted with hostagtor and I really made a mistake going with them, then I moved to Godday business hosting which gives you 512mb ram, and I had terrible experience with them. Even when my blog had 10 to 15 concurrent users, the page load time used to increase to 8 to 12 seconds.

    Finally I made the best decision in terms of hosting, I am now using digitalocean 5$ plan and my blog’s speed is always under 600ms to 700ms and sometimes 1 to 2 seconds when I have great load.

    Overall for me digital ocean is the best hosting and I would request you to please include in your next hosting review.

  21. Steve_K

    Ryan, I wish you’d add another filter to your report: support for noobs.

    I’m the webmaster (ha!) for our small Friends of the Park website. We were started with github. Awful. Now want to move to WordPress.

    I’m reading the excellent “Missing Manual” book (almost done), and what I need at this time is a little hand-holding from the hosting service in moving from Namecheap.

    Speed isn’t an issue. Even server uptime isn’t an issue. Getting us up and running is THE issue.

    Any service you could recommend?

    By the way, my own personal website, written in FrontPage, is with 1&1. It’s been many years since I needed support from them, but the two times I did they were superb. I was surprised to not see 1&1 on your list.

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Hey Steve,

      Thanks for the useful feedback. Getting up and running could definitely be an obstacle for a lot of folks. Do you just need a basic WordPress site? The install for that shouldn’t be too difficult and we’d be happy to help you out. In fact, we have a free WordPress site setup service that might interest you: https://www.wpsitecare.com/free-wordpress-blog/ That will get you up and running on a popular host and will get you a bunch of video tutorials to walk you through all the initial configurations and setup.

  22. Christoff Cavit

    great article, and thanks to the comments here I took the plunge and I bought my business email from xeliux.com, I love it, zero regrets. Thank youuu

  23. BitVigor Hosting

    I would love for my host to be reviewed! So far, I have concluded that I’m at least 2x as fast as WPEngine’s Business plan. Great article!

    1. Ross Gilham

      Yes, your BitVigor Hosting service is so amazing your site is currently down as of 6/22/2015 8:42am CST and the google cache version is an under construction page.

  24. Justin Samuel

    Hi Ryan,

    For a future update to this article, it’d be great to also evaluate WordPress hosted on a DigitalOcean server managed by ServerPilot.

    Thanks,
    Justin

  25. Bob Ransley

    I just start up my new blog and using my two hosting panel’s Go-daddy and A-small orange. These both are best and my rating will be 5 stars to them

  26. Bhavesh Gudhka

    Thank you very much for this review. I am using siteground, inmotion and Godaddy. I have used hostgator in past. Yes, I found siteground to be best hosting company, Inmotion also good when it comes to price and yes, Godaddy is worst when it comes to hosting. I have wordpress blog on Godaddy which takes ages to load.

  27. Mustakim Dhukka

    I think Bluehost is good and not that pricey, you can choose the baby starter plan with 3.49$ a month. and i think that is good.
    Anyway, thanks for sharing this article.

  28. Andrew Rotters

    Nice post!, I recomend xeliux dot com I have 3 years with them, and the service is great, I was client of godaddy, Bluehosting and others but sometimes becouse of the poor client service or the expensive of the services I was forced to move.

  29. Sylvia Grimes

    I want to start blogging and I plan to use wordpress. Who would you advise I should use as for my hosting company? I need the ease of use, affordable, and reliability. I’m so lost right now with so much information out there.

    1. Ben Coughran

      Thanks for taking the time to stop by! I hope it was helpful

  30. Dean Ethridge

    I agree with this on Bluehost being incredibly slow. I used to promote them but their service has really gone downhill. Do you have any recommendations on migrating to another hosting company?

    1. Ryan Sullivan

      Thanks for the comment, Dean. Are you looking for help on the actual migration process, or on alternate hosting companies?

    2. Jason Chester

      Site loading speed is typically not something to do with the host and how slow it loads is subjective. I’ve seen people complaining about sites loading slow and when I go to the site it loads in 5 seconds or less. The way your site is designed has a lot to do with how fast it loads as does the lack of html optimizing.

  31. Lennox Addo

    Brilliant, absolutely brilliant work/ research conducted – well done and thank you!

    Much success ?

  32. Tech Ranker

    SiteGround is the fastest WordPress hosting I’ve ever tested. My only hangup about them is that the setup fee on monthly plans and the second year prices make them too expensive to recommend.

    1. john

      Thanks for the follow on comment about cost. I was looking for cost info to complement Ryan’s performance info.

  33. Mildred

    Nice post. I think you should re run this every year or every two years so we can have the latest data from your site.

    1. Ben Coughran

      That’s not a bad idea! I’ll have to find out what their plans are and suggest just that.

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.