$25-50/Month WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks 2020
Please read the Methodology to fully understand the scope of these tests.
Note: Please check company profiles for summary of performances across multiple tiers. Some companies also offer promotions or coupon codes for a discount as well.
Originally posted here.
LoadStorm Testing Results
Load Storm is designed to simulate real users visiting the site, logging in and browsing. It tests uncached performance.
Results Table
Company | Total Requests | Total Errors | Peak Rps | Average Rps | Peak Response Time | Average Response Time | Total Data Transferred | Peak Throughput | Average Throughput | Wp-login Average Response Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cloudways | 278787 | 11 | 206 | 155 | 15101 | 1153.00 | 15.41 | 11 | 8561 | |
highavailability.io | 395491 | 18 | 294 | 220 | 15006 | 450.00 | 21.63 | 16 | 12 | |
IONOS | 234689 | 493 | 171 | 130 | 15285 | 2148.00 | 16.52 | 11 | 9179 | |
Nestify | 366719 | 1 | 280.67 | 203.73 | 15058.00 | 481 | 22.63 | 17.34 | 13 | |
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | 371118 | 36 | 282.67 | 206.18 | 13671 | 609 | 21.84 | 16.71 | 12 | |
Pantheon | 354355 | 4 | 296 | 197 | 3408.00 | 106.00 | 20 | 17 | 11 | |
Pressable | 492156 | 6 | 377 | 273.42 | 2402.00 | 93.00 | 25 | 20 | 14 | |
Seravo | 327441 | 3 | 265.35 | 181.91 | 10035 | 375 | 16.57 | 13.65 | 9205 | |
Servebolt | 554186 | 49 | 662 | 307.88 | 15156.00 | 128.00 | 20 | 25.64 | 11.29 | |
SiteGround | 459967 | 1 | 339 | 256 | 3465 | 229.00 | 24.49 | 18 | 14 | |
WordPress.com | 748064 | 14 | 596 | 416 | 15064.00 | 68.00 | 32 | 26 | 18 | |
WPX | 446395 | 90 | 334 | 248 | 15100.00 | 145.00 | 24 | 18 | 14 |
Discussion
WordPress.com Business (Automattic), HighAvailability, Nestify, Onyx, Pantheon, Pressable, Seravo, Servebolt, SiteGround and WPX Hosting all handled this test without any issues.
1&1 IONOS and Cloudways slowed down but didn't error out.
K6 Static Testing Results
K6 Static test is designed to test cached performance by repeatedly requesting the homepage.
Results Table
Company | Requests | Errors | Peak Rps | Average Response Time | Average Rps | P95 | P99 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cloudways | 265772 | 25 | |||||
highavailability.io | 293902 | 0 | |||||
IONOS | 293129 | 0 | |||||
Nestify | 296475 | 0 | |||||
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | 277224 | 0 | |||||
Pantheon | 449874 | 0 | |||||
Pressable | 449760 | 0 | |||||
Seravo | 299282 | 0 | |||||
Servebolt | 433336 | 0 | |||||
SiteGround | 370867 | 0 | |||||
WordPress.com | 448550 | 0 | |||||
WPX | 427313 | 3 |
Discussion
1&1 IONOS, WordPress.com Business (Automattic), HighAvailability, Nestify, Onyx, Pantheon, Pressable, Seravo, Servebolt, SiteGround and WPX Hosting all handled this test without issue.
Cloudways slowed down and had peak average response time climb to almost 1.5s.
Uptime Testing Results
Uptime is monitored by two companies: HetrixTools and Uptime Robot. A self hosted monitor was also run in case there was a major discrepancy between the two third party monitors.
Results Table
Company | Uptime Robot | Hetrix | Alt Uptime Monitor |
---|---|---|---|
Cloudways | 100 | 100 | |
highavailability.io | 100 | 100 | |
IONOS | 99.999 | 99.99 | |
Nestify | 100 | 100 | |
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | 99.998 | 100 | |
Pantheon | 100 | 100 | |
Pressable | 100 | 100 | |
Seravo | 100 | 100 | |
Servebolt | 99.946 | 99.96 | 99.94 |
SiteGround | 100 | 99.99 | |
WordPress.com | 100 | 100 | |
WPX | 100 | 99.99 |
Discussion
Everyone maintained uptime above 99.9% including with 11/12 keeping 99.99% or higher.
WebPageTest Testing Results
WebPageTest fully loads the homepage and records how long it takes from 12 different locations around the world. Result are measured in seconds.
Results Table
Company | Virginia | California | London | Frankfurt | Singapore | Mumbai | Tokyo | Sydney | Brazil | Average | Rose Hill Mauritius | Israel |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cloudways | 0.378 | 0.751 | 0.781 | 0.806 | 1.821 | 1.907 | 1.235 | 1.73 | 0.99 | 1.19075 | 2.076 | 1.147 |
highavailability.io | 0.412 | 0.577 | 0.971 | 0.815 | 1.873 | 2.402 | 1.073 | 1.338 | 1.18 | 1.229416667 | 2.273 | 1.274 |
IONOS | 0.663 | 0.925 | 1.212 | 1.52 | 2.905 | 2.593 | 2.974 | 2.684 | 1.769 | 2.0165 | 3.921 | 1.952 |
Nestify | 0.485 | 1.145 | 1.536 | 1.601 | 3.138 | 3.531 | 2.469 | 2.913 | 1.911 | 2.162916667 | 4.197 | 2.036 |
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | 0.681 | 1.413 | 0.371 | 0.391 | 2.085 | 2.136 | 2.019 | 2.531 | 1.596 | 1.473833333 | 2.104 | 1.075 |
Pantheon | 0.511 | 0.475 | 0.558 | 0.853 | 0.924 | 0.956 | 0.876 | 0.847 | 0.997 | 1.02275 | 3.391 | 1.115 |
Pressable | 0.543 | 0.897 | 0.958 | 0.882 | 1.764 | 2.237 | 1.445 | 1.649 | 1.596 | 1.422666667 | 2.558 | 1.661 |
Seravo | 0.513 | 0.68 | 0.942 | 1.13 | 2.23 | 1.964 | 1.532 | 1.855 | 1.426 | 1.36825 | 2.136 | 1.464 |
Servebolt | 0.655 | 0.907 | 0.457 | 0.454 | 1.08 | 0.974 | 1.161 | 1.366 | 1.051 | 0.9669166667 | 1.584 | 1.058 |
SiteGround | 0.549 | 0.796 | 1.072 | 1.158 | 2.425 | 2.421 | 1.737 | 2.39 | 1.602 | 1.60075 | 2.823 | 1.608 |
WordPress.com | 0.768 | 0.588 | 1.109 | 1.206 | 1.068 | 2.122 | 0.798 | 1.16 | 1.22 | 1.278 | 2.938 | 1.581 |
WPX | 0.47 | 0.657 | 1.026 | 1.081 | 1.748 | 2.427 | 1.44 | 2.245 | 1.919 | 1.499333333 | 2.825 | 1.445 |
Discussion
1&1 IONOS and Nestify stand out as the two slowest around the globe being first or second in 8/12 locales together. Onyx, the UK based company, was the fastest in London and Frankfurt, which is nice to see that geography seems to make an impact. Servebolt picked up the fastest average response time at just under a second average across the 12 locales.
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
Company | PHP Bench | WP Bench |
---|---|---|
Cloudways | 8.486 | 498.2561036 |
highavailability.io | 10.392 | 27.53910553 |
IONOS | 10.774 | 407.3319756 |
Nestify | 7.486 | 777.6049767 |
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | 11.083 | 257.003341 |
Pantheon | 9.793 | 273.5978112 |
Pressable | 6.217 | 1375.515818 |
Seravo | 7.926 | 485.2013586 |
Servebolt | 2.436 | 2403.846154 |
SiteGround | 7.425 | 1297.016861 |
WordPress.com | 6.255 | 2066.115702 |
WPX | 8.389 | 699.3006993 |
Discussion
The clear standout here is Servebolt with some of the fastest times I've ever seen. WordPress.com Business isn't too far back with both of them breaking them 2000 mark on WP bench (which is more than double WordPress.com Business' score last year). The highest score in any tier last year was in 1700 range (from Servebolt and High Availability[under old IWW brand]), so this is a drastic improvement.
SSL Testing Results
The tool is available at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/
Results Table
Company | Qualsys SSL Grade |
---|---|
Cloudways | B |
highavailability.io | B |
IONOS | A |
Nestify | B |
Onyx (Krystal Hosting) | A |
Pantheon | A+ |
Pressable | A |
Seravo | B |
Servebolt | B |
SiteGround | A |
WordPress.com | A |
WPX | A |
Discussion
Pantheon is the only company that achieved an A+ rating. Every single B grade was for the following reason according to Qualsys: "This server supports TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. Grade capped to B."
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.
highavailability.io
Nestify
Onyx (Krystal Hosting)
Pantheon
Pressable
Seravo
Servebolt
SiteGround
WordPress.com
WPX
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.
No company achieved this status.