$25-50/Month WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks 2021

$25-50/Month WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks 2021

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.

The Companies and Products

CompanyPlan Monthly PricePlan Visitors AllowedPlan MemoryPlan Disk SpacePlan BandwidthPlan Sites Allowed
A2Hosting $28.98Unlimited4GBUnlimitedUnlimitedUnlimited
Bluehost $39.95100,000/mon/a40 GB Storageunlimited1
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic $50Unlimited (absolute maximum depends on available plan resources and code of the hosted websites)Based on usage. Up to 4 GiBBased on usage. Up to 20 GBUnlimitedUnlimited
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic CHF 45Unlimited (absolute maximum depends on available plan resources and code of the hosted websites)Based on usage. Up to 4 GiBBased on usage. Up to 20 GBUnlimitedUnlimited
IONOS $40Unlimited4 GB40 GB SSDUnlimited1
Krystal Hosting £34.9950,000N/A10 GBUnlimited1
Pressable $2530,000/month256GB20GBUnlimited1
Rocket.net $2525,0001G PHP memory_limit10GB50GB1
Seravo 45€30000 on average-30GB-1
SiteGround $39.99No hard limit but advertised as suitable for ~ 100,000 Visits Monthly No hard limit - https://www.siteground.com/shared-hosting-features.htm 40 GB Web Space UnlimitedUnlimited
WordPress.com $25UnlimitedN/A200GBUnlimited 1
WPX $49.99n/a128 Mb per PHP process, 3 PHP processes per website20 Gb200 Gb15
View Full Products Table

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 ThroughputWp-login Average Response Time
A2Hosting 5317611722649.52295.421572133323.183213586
Bluehost 4260045317.63236.671507062320.316111721
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 528769286385.72293.761502210524.661914425
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 561738472403.43312.081526210325.241814462
IONOS 256585413195.22142.5515725316813.14936173017626
Krystal Hosting 473257226353.67262.921510742422.771712.65807
Pressable 5490620406.72305.03832412124.311814311
Rocket.net 5752601454.07319.591508117360.025233.35280
Seravo 50266127379.88279.261510145322.611712.56782
SiteGround 5065034373.68281.39698420524.0317.9913.35234
WordPress.com 172076401292.70955.98682513445.763525.42274
WPX 51212110383.75284.5133258523.361812.98263

Discussion

CloudJiffy, Infomaniak, LightningBase, Pressable, Presslabs, Scaleforce, Servebolt and WPX all handled this test without issue.

Nexcess had couple small spikes in performance causing some errors but otherwise performed well. SaveInCloud had the most borderline performance in perhaps all of this years testing, the error rate was 0.12% where no company above 0.1% error rate gets Top Tier status on this test.

ICDSoft slowed down (CPU/RAM limit I believe) which causes the response time and error pattern we see. IONOS slowed down, we see average response time substantially increase and wp-login exceed 1500ms. MDDHosting's performance slowly degraded showing 500 errors as load increased.

K6 Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyRequestsErrorsPeak RpsAverage Response TimeAverage RpsP95P99
A2Hosting 4018480885121440235236
Bluehost 4449420981134882132
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 444983131981134896465
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 444893109982134866363
IONOS 3974230874133437263265
Krystal Hosting 3910050866152429283487
Pressable 4449022979134897676
Rocket.net 4426730974184873056
Seravo 3939640865143433301353
SiteGround 3969171880135436259615
WordPress.com 4447960981134897474
WPX 440383096523484125126

Discussion

CloudJiffy, Infomaniak, IONOS, LightningBase, MDDHosting, Pressable, Presslabs, SaveInCloud, Scaleforce, Servebolt and WPX all handled this test without issue.

SiteGround took a little bit to warm up but ultimately handled the test well.

ICDSoft appeared to throttle but not degrade performance. Nexcess had a few errors and slowed down slightly.

Overall, everyone seems to have handled this test quiet well.

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
A2Hosting 99.94199.892899.81
Bluehost 97.58298.2025
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 85.028100100
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 85.03610099.989
IONOS 99.85599.978299.975
Krystal Hosting 99.90699.9302
Pressable 100100
Rocket.net 10099.9216
Seravo 100100
SiteGround 99.99699.9939
WordPress.com 100100
WPX 84.07599.9967100

Discussion

ICDSoft, LightningBase, MDDHosting, Nexcess, Pressable, Scaleforce, and Servebolt all had 99.9%. Impressively all of these except Nexcess had over 99.99%.

WPX had a typo with a DNS record that I personally screwed up which caused one uptime monitor to not properly track uptime because one record had the wrong IP address. 2/3 uptime monitors were able to failover and track the correct uptime, the other reported a wildly inaccurate uptime because of my mistake, so I am not penalizing the low score seen and giving them full marks for their performance.

I didn't expect SSL renewal problems to impact so many companies, but CloudJiffy, Infomaniak, IONOS, Presslabs and SaveInCloud all suffered downtime from SSL issues.

WebPageTest Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyVirginiaCaliforniaSalt Lake CityLondonFrankfurtCape TownSingaporeMumbaiTokyoSydneyBrazilDubaiAverage
A2Hosting 0.9080.8990.9870.9240.9971.4111.5691.431.1751.3621.1181.3551.177916667
Bluehost 0.7290.6650.9921.0821.1841.6751.1831.6141.0051.0821.2381.51.162416667
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 0.8451.2951.4430.6250.7091.0931.2311.1421.571.7510.8881.591.181833333
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 1.2890.8071.4690.7630.6781.0661.311.2721.5180.8581.4811.7671.189833333
IONOS 0.8280.851.090.9941.0931.5071.6041.5741.1951.3821.3291.4461.241
Krystal Hosting 1.0631.021.1870.6150.71.0341.6131.7211.4991.7961.3340.8621.203666667
Pressable 1.0480.9781.2081.0470.9322.4471.9761.7261.6611.7331.3751.9911.510166667
Rocket.net 0.780.6120.8980.6540.6520.6090.6230.6990.5380.6460.6350.490.653
Seravo 1.1011.0781.0860.6130.5591.2651.1630.8561.4711.9041.2550.8141.097083333
SiteGround 0.8490.8790.8661.0651.1431.7462.1851.8041.3481.5661.2741.5641.357416667
WordPress.com 0.8020.7541.0280.7870.7451.5570.7571.030.8760.7650.8060.8620.8974166667
WPX 0.4370.370.8120.3470.3290.8780.6060.9880.3220.6780.4180.7040.5740833333

Discussion

Rocket stands out being the fastest in 5/12 locations and second in 4/12 locations. WPX also was the fastest in 5/12 locations and second in 3/12 locations earning the second fastest average response time.

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
A2Hosting 4.331819.6721311
Bluehost 8.762366.9724771
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 9.51173.70892
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 8.4571485.884101
IONOS 10.781491.1591356
Krystal Hosting 6.058478.2400765
Pressable 4.2241222.493888
Rocket.net 7.616892.0606601
Seravo 5.346305.9039462
SiteGround 7.4681408.450704
WordPress.com 4.1272450.980392
WPX 7.1581526.717557

Discussion

A2, Pressable and WordPress.com stand out on the PHP Bench finishing in under 5 seconds. WordPress.com also has one of the highest WP bench of any company in any tier this year, one of the highest scores I've ever seen.

SSL Testing Results

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

Results Table

CompanyQualsys SSL Grade
A2Hosting A+
Bluehost A
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic A
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic A
IONOS A
Krystal Hosting A
Pressable A
Rocket.net B
Seravo A
SiteGround A
WordPress.com A+
WPX A

Discussion

A2 Hosting and WordPress.com earned A+, everyone else earned an A except Rocket which earned a B for supporting TLS 1.0/1.1.

Internet.nl Testing Results

The tool is available at https://internet.nl/test-site/.

Results Table

CompanyInternet.nl
A2Hosting 35
Bluehost 32
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic 28
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic 28
IONOS 50
Krystal Hosting 35
Pressable 50
Rocket.net 66
Seravo 66
SiteGround 30
WordPress.com 52
WPX 32

Discussion

Rocket and Seravo scored the highest while CloudJiffy and Infomaniak scored the lowest. It's interesting to see no company is scoring very highly on this test. One possible explanation is that some of the settings are more user driven than host driven.

Mozilla Observatory Testing Results

The tool is available at https://observatory.mozilla.org/.

Results Table

CompanyMozilla Observatory
A2Hosting C-
Bluehost F
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic F
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic F
IONOS F
Krystal Hosting F
Pressable F
Rocket.net D
Seravo C
SiteGround F
WordPress.com D
WPX F

Discussion

Similar to the Internet.nl test, we see results not very high including a lot of F grades (8/12) with the highest being a C for Seravo and C- for A2 Hosting.

I really don't know what to make of these results, when most companies are failing, I have to consider whether the test is useful, or are many companies not doing a good job securing the servers or are these measuring things which are beyond the hosting provider's scope and more on the user? Or is it something else? I don't have an answer, but I am publishing the results to add another data point to the discussion.

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

A2 Hosting has been a regular in these benchmarks. This year wasn't the best for them. The highlight was probably the K6 test which was smooth. The Load Storm was was ok with a single spike. The problem was the uptime, there were many timeouts which caused the uptime to drop below the 99.9% threshold unfortunately. It seems like a solid product with a few little things left to work out before it earns awards.
BlueHost has been a regular participant in these benchmarks for many years. This year they showed flashes of brilliance: the K6 test had BlueHost tied for fastest average response time and the fastest P95 and P99 by a decent margin. Unfortunately the Load Storm test slowed down substantially and had wp-login response time over 1700ms. The uptime results were also well below the 99.9% level required to earn any awards. There was an issue with the test account being accidentally deleted, but also some outages that brought it down. It looks like there is potentially a solid product there but it didn't live up to its potential in this years benchmark.
CloudJiffy powered by Jelastic came out very strong performance wise for their first time. Their results were nearly identical to Infomaniak. The load tests went relatively smoothly. They even tied for lowest average response time on K6. Unfortunately there was a problem with automatic SSL renewals which caused downtime putting them below the 99.9% threshold required to earn any awards. Without this bug it would have been winning some recognition.
Infomaniak powered by Jelastic came out very strong performance wise for their first time. The load tests went relatively smoothly. They even tied for lowest average response time on K6. Unfortunately there was a problem with automatic SSL renewals which caused downtime putting them below the 99.9% threshold required to earn any awards. One bug away from potentially earning Top Tier marks.
IONOS has been a regular under IONOS and its previous 1&1 branding. The SSL issue on the uptime monitoring hurt. The Load Storm test also slowed down too much, but it's good that it never really hit failure mode under all the stress. There's definitely room for improvement on the product but I hope the changes next year will fix these issues and have them do well.
Krystal's second year, this product was named Onyx last year and run under a separate brand which has been brought back into the parent company. Krystal earned Top Tier status. It was above 99.9% threshold for uptime. It handled the load tests without slowing down at all. It didn't stand out amongst its Top Tier peers but delivered a solid performance which may because of the UK focus, as the tests from outside European locations weren't as fast as some more globally focused brands.
Pressable has been a consistent presence in these benchmarks and earned Top Tier status again this year. The uptime was perfect at 100%. The load tests were relatively smooth with only 2 errors. Pressable had another solid year.
A new comer to the benchmarks and a welcome one. An outstanding performance earned Rocket Top Tier status this year. The load tests had a total of a single error and the K6 test had the second lowest P99 score. Rocket also stood out in the WebPageTest benchmark where it had the fastest global average response time.
Seravo earned Top Tier status again this year. Perfect uptime and smooth load tests. Seravo didn't stand out in any of the big tests, but just put up an overall solid performance. Seravo also had the highest Internetnl and Mozilla Observatory marks for what that is worth.
SiteGround earned Honorable Mention status this year. The Load Storm test was great and had the lowest wp-login response time. Uptime was above 99.99%. The only slight weakness was shown on the K6 test where it took a little while before the caches seemed to fully warm up and respond quickly.
WordPress.com earned Top Tier status again. There's really almost nothing to say since it had perfect 100% uptime on both monitors, zero errors across both load tests and the fastest WP bench of any company in any price tier this year. An overall flawless performance.
WPX earned Top Tier status again. They have been quite consistent earning Top Tier marks over the years. Beyond me screwing up a DNS record and a tiny spike in Load Storm it was a near flawless run. WPX even impressed on the WPT benchmark where their home rolled CDN seems to be paying off.

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