The Companies and Products

LoadStorm Testing Results

The Load Storm test (in k6) is designed to simulate real users visiting the site, logging in and browsing. It tests uncached performance.

The key metrics are:

• Total Requests - Number of requests k6 made
• Total Errors - Number of error requests
• p95 - The 95th percentile response time
• Page Cum Avg - Cumulative average response time for Pages (html)
• Asset Cum Avg - Cumulative average response time for Assets (css, js, images)
• Login Cum Avg - Cumulative average response time for Login (wp-profile.php)
• WP-Login Avg Response Time - Average response time for login (301 redirect which validates credentials)

Results Table

Discussion

Bluehost, GreenGeeks, Pressable, Tangible, WordPress.com, WP Buzz, WPX, and Krystal Hosting all handled the LoadStorm test without issue. Krystal's graph is the most visible cron pattern in the group — two jobs appear to be firing on 1-minute and 5-minute intervals, and when both coincide there's a big spike for a moment, but overall the test was fine.

Arsys Internet also had a clean LoadStorm — zero errors and flat response times with one regional spike. The static test (K6) was a different story (below).

CloudPress had a striking 10-minute spike pattern that was diagnosed to a BunnyCDN security measure that interferes with synthetic testing. We tried but the policy couldn't be exempted for the test. Ignoring those recurring spikes the test looks a lot better, but with the security measure still in play we can't fully separate hardware issues from monitoring interference.

KnownHost showed 5-minute cron-related spikes through the test, and around 850 VUsers the third cron event turned into sustained slow response times for the rest of the run.

InMotion Hosting had a big spike of response times and errors in the middle of the test (~11.6k errors) that the server recovered from, but it cost them the run.

ScalaHosting started slowing down around 350 VUsers with errors arriving around 600 VUsers.

K6 Static Testing Results

K6 Static test is designed to test cached performance by repeatedly requesting the homepage.

Results Table

Discussion

WPX had the fastest average response time at 4.9ms (3.73ms once cached). Pressable was second at 5.0ms and WordPress.com was third at 6.1ms. WP Buzz (7.7ms), Tangible (11.2ms), CloudPress (12.8ms), and Bluehost (15.1ms) were the rest of the sub-30ms group.

The line between companies running edge-cached configurations and those serving from origin is again pretty clear — the next cluster sits in the 100-130ms range and largely matches the no-CDN plans.

Arsys Internet is the interesting one in this section. The average came in at 319ms with 168 errors, and the graph looks like a security/throttle pattern — fine, then not fine, repeating through the test. We've seen this shape before when a per-IP rate limit or resource cap kicks in, drops back, and re-fires.

ScalaHosting had no static cache configured by default and the test slowed down accordingly. The 8.9s average isn't a hardware story, it's an origin-load story.

Uptime Testing Results

Uptime is monitored by three sources: HetrixTools and StatusCake as third-party services, plus a self-hosted UptimeKuma instance for cross-reference in case of major discrepancy between the third-party monitors.

Results Table

Discussion

Pressable was the only result with 100% across all three monitors. WordPress.com, WP Buzz, and InMotion Hosting all stayed above 99.9% on every monitor and were near perfect.

Bluehost is the standout this tier. StatusCake recorded 99.93%, but HetrixTools came in at 94.48% and UptimeKuma at 91.98%. Two monitors registering substantial outages while the third had a normal year is unusual, and the LoadStorm and K6 tests both ran cleanly on the same plan. The WAF probably treated the monitor IPs differently rather than this being a real outage of that size. The honorable mention stands but the numbers as recorded are worth noting.

WPX (SC 99.82%, UK 99.79%), CloudPress (SC 99.86%, UK 99.89%), Krystal Hosting (UK 99.38%), and Arsys Internet (HT 99.88%) each came in below 99.9% on at least one monitor. Everyone else was 99.9%+ across the board.

GTmetrix Testing Results

GTmetrix loads the homepage and records how long it takes from 12 different locations around the world. (We switched from WebPageTest to GTmetrix in 2026.) Results are measured in seconds.

Results Table

Discussion

WP Buzz had the fastest average by a significant margin, picking up 11 of the 12 locations. WordPress.com was the fastest in San Antonio TX. No other company won an individual location.

Pressable had the second fastest average overall and GreenGeeks the third.

Tangible and InMotion Hosting had the slowest averages at this tier. The chart can be adjusted by clicking on a company to filter outliers.

WPPerformanceTester Testing Results

WPPerformanceTester performs two benchmarks. One is a WordPress (WP Bench) and the other is a PHP Bench. WP Bench measures how many WP queries per second and higher tends to be better (varies considerably by architecture). PHP Bench performs a lot of computational and some database operations which are measured in seconds to complete. Lower PHP Bench is better.

Results Table

Discussion

WP Buzz had the fastest PHP Bench at 4.87s. Tangible was right behind at 4.96s and ScalaHosting was third at 6.91s.

Tangible had the fastest WP Bench by a significant margin. Bluehost was second and WP Buzz was third.

WPBenchmark Score

WPBenchmark is a hosting performance benchmark that produces a single composite score per server. Higher is better.

Results Table

Discussion

The WPBenchmark.io scores agreed with the WPPerformanceTester results. Tangible led at 9.9, WP Buzz was second at 9.8, and Bluehost was third at 9.3.

SSL Testing Results

The tool is available at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

Results Table

Discussion

No B grades at this tier this year.

Arsys Internet earned an A-.

GreenGeeks, Pressable, ScalaHosting, Tangible, and WordPress.com earned A+.

Everyone else earned an A.

Conclusion

There are two levels of recognition awarded to companies that participate in the tests. There is no ‘best’ declared, it’s simply tiered, it’s hard to come up with an objective ranking system because of the complex nature of hosting. These tests also don’t take into account outside factors such as reviews, support, and features. It is simply testing performance as described in the methodology.

Top Tier

This year's Top Tier WordPress Hosting Performance Award goes to the following companies who showed virtually no signs of struggle during the testing.

Honorable Mention

The following companies earned Honorable Mention status because they did very well and had a minor issue or two holding them back from earning Top Tier status.

Individual Host Analysis