WooCommerce Hosting Performance Benchmarks 2020

WooCommerce 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.

WooCommerce Hosting Performance Benchmarks is spawned off WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks and is designed to create a consistent set of benchmarks showing how WooCommerce specialized web hosting companies perform. The focus of these tests is performancenot support, not features, not any other dimension. These benchmarks should be looked at in combination with other sources of information when making any hosting decision. Review Signal’s web hosting reviews has insights for some of the companies with regards to aspects beyond performance. That said, for the performance conscious, these benchmarks should be a good guide.

The original post can be viewed here.

The major differences from the WordPress methodology are the following:

Setup

All tests were performed on an identical WooCommerce dummy website with the same plugins except in cases where hosts added extra plugins or code. The Storefront theme was used with the following sample products. The following Plugins were installed: Jetpack, WooCommerce, WooCommerce Admin, WooCommerce Services, WooCommerce Stripe Gateway, and WP Performance Tester.

WooCommerce Specific Settings were a US address, $USD, digital products, Stripe payment gateway, Storefront theme, automated taxes with Jetpack installed.

Load Storm

The process for LoadStorm was the unique WooCommerce specific test. There were four different profiles created and given their own user distributions (in % after profile), all with 5-10 second page think time. The test scaled from 10 to 1000 concurrent users over 40 minutes and stayed at 1,000 concurrent users for 20 minutes (60 minute test, 20 minute peak).

Profile 1 (20%): Buyer – Homepage, add item to cart, go to cart, checkout (doesn’t submit order)

Profile 2 (10%): Customer (existing) – Homepage, login, view orders, view account details

Profile 3 (20%): Browser – Homepage, second page, product, related product, homepage, product, related product

Profile 4 (50%): Home – Homepage only, called Visitor profile last year

Load Impact

Followed the $51-100/Month Price Tier with load going from 1-2000 users over 15 minutes.

 

Companies and Products

LoadStorm Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyTotal RequestsTotal ErrorsPeak RpsAverage RpsPeak Response TimeAverage Response TimeTotal Data TransferredPeak ThroughputAverage ThroughputWoo Buyer ProfileWoo Customer ProfileWoo Browser ProfileWoo Home ProfileWp-login Average Response Time
GreenGeeks 1985092258788.48551.411510618350.3419.9213.98698908463470
Nestify 401852131544.181116.26150755399.4637.9827.63485446463266
Pressable 477322521847.271325.901504944119.4546.1733.1850451110289
Seravo 1702737343818576.37472.981501328336.5611.7510.15707674720661
Servebolt 51252622182016.501423.681510650118.1646.5832.8238340139888
SiteGround 23509506914.48653.041002813158.4922.8716.25276343156120
Wetopi 1985848120729.80551.62103621884616.9112.78977845619523

Discussion

GreenGeeks, Nestify, Pressable, Servebolt, SiteGround and Wetopi handled Load Storm without issue.

Seravo had similar issue in their other load tests in the WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks in the $101-200 tier which was a docker proxy bug that couldn't be resolved during the tests.

I decided to take a deeper look at the results and analyze the performance of loading HTML mime types, to ignore a lot of static assets which are cached and bring down average response times.

I broke it down by profile because each script is different in terms of which endpoints on WooCommerce they are hitting.

Load Storm Average Response Time by Profile

This takes deeper look at the results and analyzes the performance of loading HTML mime types, to ignore a lot of static assets which are cached and bring down average response times. This tests how fast the initial pages are delivered, which is what a user would experience before loading all the other assets like css, javascript and images.

Results Table

CompanyBuyer ProfileCustomer ProfileBrowser ProfileHome Profile
GreenGeeks 698908463470
Nestify 485446463266
Pressable 50451110289
Seravo 707674720661
Servebolt 38340139888
SiteGround 276343156120
Wetopi 977845619523

*Seravo included but high error rate makes this number not mean a whole lot.

What we can see from the results is that the homepage only (Visitor profile) is universally the fastest page for every company. That would be expected since the page should be cached and it's only hitting that single endpoint.

The second fastest profile in general seems to be the be the product viewer (Browser profile) who simply looks at different products on the site.

The Buyer and Existing Customer profiles appear to be the heaviest - although it's unclear one is obviously more stressful for WooCommerce based on the results. Both are having to deal with data being sent to the server and handled in a unique manner for each request.

It is reassuring to see that the generally expected outcome matches the reality. It's also nice to see the average response time under 1000ms for even the heavier pages.

K6 Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyRequestsErrorsPeak RpsAverage Response TimeAverage RpsP95P99
GreenGeeks 6265190556
Nestify 7289450697
Pressable 8992630208
Seravo 6322030565
Servebolt 84355012161
SiteGround 8082590220
Wetopi 4878485511920

Discussion

Average Response Time was actually Peak Average Response time in Load Impact.

Green Geeks, Nestify, Pressable, Seravo Servebolt and SiteGround all handled this test without issue.

Wetopi struggled a some and peak average load time was up to 1920ms.

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

CompanyUptime RobotHetrixAlt Uptime Monitor
GreenGeeks 99.91199.99100
Nestify 100100100
Pressable 100100100
Seravo 99.997100100
Servebolt 99.58399.9999.99
SiteGround 99.99699.99
Wetopi 99.99399.98100

Discussion

Servebolt was the fastest in three locations but had the lowest average response time around the world doing consistently well amongst its peers. Wetopi was the fastest in 4 locations and slowest in four locations, an interesting pattern. Nestify was the slowest in 7/12 locations which is a little disappointing but then it ends up being the fastest in Frankfurt and second fastest in Dulles.

WebPageTest Testing Results

WebPageTest fully loads the homepage and records how long it takes from 12 different locations around the world.

Results Table

CompanyCaliforniaLondonFrankfurtSingaporeMumbaiSydneyAverageVirginiaTokyoChicagoIsraelRose Hill Mauritius
GreenGeeks 1.3251.1581.232.6342.5192.6811.7151666670.8931.9551.1491.7153.323
Nestify 22.6860.6613.94.2293.492.5014166670.7032.9741.2812.5215.572
Pressable 1.6521.1181.2511.6821.7981.5341.434750.7861.5281.1112.0712.686
Seravo 1.371.1451.2822.7052.652.5961.7508333330.7082.1061.1461.7913.511
Servebolt 1.7891.030.8881.7632.3461.2781.3460833330.6571.0851.2641.8322.221
SiteGround 1.4861.341.4292.5513.1382.6851.873250.7381.6121.0481.9944.458
Wetopi 1.7070.5942.1034.3151.4473.4451.8545833330.9482.9351.5171.1582.086

Discussion

Every company was above the 99.9% threshold I would expect from any company. The only issue was a strange discrepancy between UptimeRobot and StatusCake on Servebolt's uptime. One showed a very low 99.583 and the other 99.99. The third monitor I setup showed 99.99%, so the issue appears to be with Uptime Robot.

WPPerformanceTester Testing Results

WPPerformanceTester performs two benchmarks. One is a WordPress (WP Bench) and the other a PHP benchmark. 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. WP Bench is red in the chart, PHP Bench is blue.

Results Table

CompanyPHP BenchWP Bench
GreenGeeks 9.921402.524544
Nestify 7.483809.7165992
Pressable 6.3691317.523057
Seravo 8.094400.8016032
Servebolt 3.2712008.032129
SiteGround 9.493425.8943782
Wetopi 11.343576.3688761

Discussion

Servebolt was the obvious standout here. They had the highest queries per second and lowest PHP Bench time.

SSL Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyQualsys SSL Grade
GreenGeeks A+
Nestify B
Pressable A
Seravo B
Servebolt B
SiteGround A
Wetopi B

Discussion

Green Geeks was the only company to receive an A+ rating.

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.

No company achieved this status.


Individual Host Analysis

Green Geeks did well on every test. It didn't stand out in any of them as the fastest but it handled every test without failures and kept response times from increasing. It was also on the cheapest package competing. Well done and congratulations to Green Geeks for earning Top Tier honors.
Nestify had only three errors total in both load tests which is excellent. The average response time on Load Storm was a very fast 53ms. Capped off with perfect 100% uptime on both monitors was an excellent performance overall for Nestify. I'd like to see WebPageTest scores get faster but that's a minor complaint. It was a Top Tier performance and Nestify deserves the recognition.
Perfect uptime is a solid start. Pressable also had the second fastest Average Response Time on WebPageTest. It also was the fastest average response time on Load Storm. It was fastest on Browser profile as well as 1ms behind the fastest on the visitor profile. It was also the second fastest on Load Impact and handled the most requests. Pressable earned Top Tier performance for an impressive inaugural run on the WooCommerce tests.
Near perfect uptime with 100% and 99.97% was a solid start. The Load Impact test went smoothly with zero errors. However, an unfortunate docker proxy bug that couldn't be fixed caused a high number of errors on Load Storm knocking it out of any recognition. A solid start, hopefully next year the kinks will be worked out and we will see them do better.
Servebolt had the fastest WebPageTest average, fastest PHP Bench, highest WP Bench and fastest Peak Average Load Time on Load Impact. Throw in second fastest average response on Load Storm. Then on the broken down by script measuring time for key pages to load, they were the second fastest on both Buyer and Existing Customer profiles, third on Browser profile and first on the Visitor profile. Servebolt had an awful lot of fast across all the tests, a very well earned Top Tier performance.
SiteGround had solid uptime with 99.99% and 99.996%. It had the third fastest Load Impact Peak Average Load Time. It was also the fastest on the Buyer and Existing Customer profiles along with second and third on Browser and Visitor profiles respectively. SiteGround earned Top Tier recognition for its great performance.
A solid uptime was recorded at 99.993% and 99.98%. WebPageTest had Wetopi earning the fastest and slowest in some locations. Interesting pattern on the radar chart. Load Storm Wetopi held up but it was on the slower end in most measures compared to its competitors. Unfortunately, the problem was Load Impact which caused load times to peak at almost 2 seconds. It was a decent performance but there's still improvements to be made.

About the Author

Kevin Ohashi

Kevin Ohashi is the geek-in-charge at Review Signal. He is passionate about making data meaningful for consumers. Kevin is based in Washington, DC.

Recommended Articles

Want updates sent to your email?

Subscribe to our Newsletter