WooCommerce 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.
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 performance, not 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 major differences from the WordPress methodology are the following:
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.
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
Followed the $51-100/Month Price Tier with load going from 1-2000 users over 15 minutes.
The Companies and Products
|Company||Plan Monthly Price||Plan Visitors Allowed||Plan Memory||Plan Disk Space||Plan Bandwidth||Plan Sites Allowed|
|Lightning Base||$19.95||25,000 Guideline||5 GB||5 GB||100 GB cap||3|
|ManagedWPHosting||€50.00||not limited by vistor amount, it is limited by disk and traffic||account has at least 128MB PHP RAM (as said on the site ,we provide 256MB), server has 32 GB||20GB||400GB a month||1|
|Nexcess||$19||unmetered||cloud - variable bursts||30GB||3 TB||1|
|Seravo||€100.00||60,000 visits / month||N/A||60GB||N/A||1|
|Servebolt||$99||1 000 000 Dynamic Requests||Unmetered||4 GB (+flex)||Unmetered||3 (+ unlimited dev environments)|
|SiteGround||$39.99||~100,000 Visits Monthly. The actual limits are for CPU usage.||768MB per process||40 GB||Unmetered Traffic||Unlimited Websites|
LoadStorm Testing Results
Load Storm is designed to simulate real users visiting the site, logging in and browsing. It tests uncached performance.
|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||Woo Buyer Profile||Woo Customer Profile||Woo Browser Profile||Woo Home Profile|
Lightning Base, WordPress.com, SiteGround, Pressable, and Servebolt all handled this test without issue.
ManagedWPHosting slowed down and had errors. Seravo had a bug which caused errors on a significant amount of requests but the ones that went through looked fine. GoDaddy slowed down and had errors on get_refreshed_fragment which is an important call to update the shopping cart. Nexcess had some wp-login issues on the majority of requests.
Load Storm Average Response Time by Profile
|Company||Buyer Profile||Customer Profile||Browser Profile||Home Profile|
Similar to last year the home profile and browser profile seem to be the fastest in that order. These would be the most static and cachable pages since we are only looking. Also similar to last year it's not clear that the Buyer or Customer profile is universally more difficult for hosting companies to deal with. Both hit uncachable endpoints and should cause load.
Servebolt, SiteGround, GoDaddy, and Pressable are your fastest four on the Buyer profile
Servebolt, SiteGround, Pressable and WordPress.com are your fastest four on the Customer profile.
Pressable, GoDaddy, SiteGround, and WordPress.com are your fastest four on Browser profile.
Seravo, Servebolt, SiteGround, and Pressable are your fastest four on the Home profile.
GreenGeeks slowed down for the Buyer profile. ManagedWPHosting slowed down for the Buyer and Customer profiles.
K6 Testing Results
K6 is designed to test cached performance by repeatedly requesting the homepage.
|Company||Requests||Errors||Peak Rps||Average Response Time||Average Rps||P95||P99|
This test used Load Impact (predecessor to K6).
A2Hosting, GreenGeeks, Lightning Base, WordPress.com, SiteGround, Pressable, Nexcess, and Servebolt all handled this test without issue.
Seravo and GoDaddy were ok, relatively flat but a bit slower especially at at P95/P99 levels.
ManagedWPHosting slowed down during the test.
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.
|Company||Uptime Robot||Hetrix||Alt Uptime Monitor|
GreenGeeks, LightningBase, WordPress.com, Seravo, SiteGround, GoDaddy, Pressable, and Servebolt all had 99.99% uptime or higher.
A2Hosting, ManagedWPHosting and Nexcess had some downtime issues which caused it to drop below 99.9%
WebPageTest Testing Results
WebPageTest fully loads the homepage and records how long it takes from 12 different locations around the world.
|Company||Virginia||California||Salt Lake City||London||Frankfurt||Cape Town||Singapore||Mumbai||Tokyo||Sydney||Brazil||Dubai||Average|
WordPress.com is an absolute standout here. It was the fastest in 10/12 locations. Servebolt was second fastest overall and in 6/12 locations.
On the other end, GoDaddy was the slowest in 6/12 locations and Nexcess was the slowest in 5/12 locations and they were the slowest and second slowest respectively.
Unsurprisingly, US and European locations tend to be much faster, other locations spread out considerably more based on the company.
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.
|Company||PHP Bench||WP Bench|
The PHP Bench scores looked a lot faster than the normal WordPress counterparts. Servebolt had the fastest at 3.246 seconds. But WordPress.com, Pressable, Nexcess, and A2Hosting all had 4.x second speeds. ManagedWPHosting and Seravo had 5.x second speeds. Last year, only Servebolt was under 6 seconds. This year we have 7 companies under that mark. It's nice to see such huge speed increases.
The WP Bench was a run away with WordPress.com scoring 2500 which I believe is the fastest score I've ever measured in any test. Last year there was only two companies above 1400 queries per second. This year there are six companies.
SSL Testing Results
The tool is available at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/
|Company||Qualsys SSL Grade|
A's for everyone with A2Hosting, GreenGeeks, ManagedWPHosting, Servebolt and WordPress.com earning A+.
Internet.nl Testing Results
The tool is available at https://internet.nl/test-site/.
ManagedWPHosting had the top score at 73, closely followed by Servebolt at 68 and Seravo at 66. SiteGround was at the bottom with 30.
I'm not sure how much value there is in this metric, but the results are here for people to look at and evaluate for themselves.
Mozilla Observatory Testing Results
The tool is available at https://observatory.mozilla.org/.
ManagedWPHosting had the highest grade of B. Followed by Seravo with a C, A2Hosting,GreenGeeks,Servebolt D+, GoDaddy/WordPress.com D, and the rest getting Fs.
I really don't know what to make of these results, when so many 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.
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.
This year's Top Tier WordPress Hosting Performance Award goes to the following companies who showed virtually no signs of struggle during the testing.
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.