WooCommerce Hosting Performance Benchmarks 2023
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: WooCommerce, and WP Performance Tester.
k6 Load Storm
The process for LoadStorm was the unique WooCommerce specific test emulated from last year into k6. 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 4 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, visit 5 random product pages
Profile 4 (50%): Home – Homepage only
Source files available here: https://github.com/ReviewSignal/k6-WordPress-benchmarks
Followed the $51-100/Month Price Tier with load going from 1-2000 users over 15 minutes.
Cloudways was run using DigitalOcean 8GB Premium Droplet.
The Companies and Products
|Company||Plan Monthly Price||Plan Visitors Allowed||Plan Memory||Plan Disk Space||Plan Bandwidth||Plan Sites Allowed|
|Blallo||90||Unlimited||Custom/At least 4 GB||35+ GB||Unmetered||1|
|Cloudways||$96||Unlimited||8 GB RAM, 4 vCPU||160 GB NVMe||5 TB||Unlimited|
|Nexcess||$79||Unlimited||N/A||60 GB||5 TB||3|
|Pressable||$45||50000||512 MB/PHP process||30 GB||Unlimited||3|
|Presslabs||$99||90,000 page views||1.5 GB||90 GB||Unmetered||1|
|Seravo||60 EUR||1,500,000 HTTP req||10 GB+||30 GB||2 Gbps+||1|
|Servebolt||$99||Unlimited||Unlimited||10 GB||Unmetered server bandwidth 100 GB CDN bandwidth||5|
|SiteGround||$39.99||400,000 Recommendation||n/a||40 GB||unlimited traffic||Unlimited|
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)
|Company||Total Requests||Total Errors||Peak Rps||Average Rps||P95||Wp-login Average Response Time||Page Cum Avg||Asset Cum Avg||Login Cum Avg||Woo Buyer Profile||Woo Customer Profile||Woo Browser Profile||Woo Home Profile||Woo Cart Response Cumavg|
GreenGeeks, Nexcess, Pressable, Presslabs, Seravo, Servebolt, SiteGround, and WordPress.com didn't have any issues.
Blallo started to show signs of load around 850 users and response times slowed down. It kept delivering, but it slowed down enough to keep it out of earning recognition.
Cloudways started slowing down around 350 VUsers with errors kicking in around 1,000.
Load Storm Average Response Time by Profile
|Company||Buyer Profile||Customer Profile||Browser Profile||Home Profile||Cart Response Cumavg|
Cloudways stands out with the highest response times.
Blallo had the second highest response times across every profile.
Presslabs had 2/4 of the fastest profiles along with fastest cart speed.
Pressable and Seravo picked up the two other fastest profile scores.
Servebolt was the second fastest in 2/4 profiles and 2nd fastest cart speed.
K6 Static Testing Results
K6 Static test is designed to test cached performance by repeatedly requesting the homepage.
|Company||Requests||Errors||Peak Rps||Average Response Time||Average Rps||P95|
Every single company handled the static test well. The entire cohort saw a combined 5 errors total which is astonishingly low. The highest average response time was 130ms which is still quite fast. Pressable and WordPress.com both were single digit average response times with 5 other companies following with 30ms or lower right behind them (Nexcess, Presslabs, Servebolt, SiteGround, Blallo).
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.
Uptime Robot showed 100% uptime on every single company. HetrixTools showed above 99.9% on every company. Not a single company had uptime issues during this test.
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.
|Company||Virginia||California||Salt Lake City||London||Frankfurt||Cape Town||Singapore||Mumbai||Tokyo||Sydney||Brazil||Dubai||Average|
WordPress.com was the fastest this year on average but only was the fastest in Mumbai.
Presslabs earned itself second fastest average with 3/12 locations showing it to be the fastest.
Last year's fastest GreenGeeks, improved their average from 773ms to 730ms, a 43ms improvement. It was the fastest in 4/12 locations. The field continued to get faster and it only earned third this year on average response time.
SiteGround had the fastest in Sydney, Servebolt in Brazil, Blallo in Dubai and Cape Town.
Everyone, especially consumers, looks like a winner given the historical context.
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.
|Company||PHP Bench||WP Bench|
Servebolt had the fastest PHP bench and WP Bench scores by a significant margin. Servebolt run a patched version of MariaDB whereas the default version performs AES_ENCRYPT() function slower. I debated changing the plugin before I was aware it was patchable, but considering it is something fixable, I opted not to change it this year.
Presslabs and then Nexcess had the second and third fastest PHP bench scores. Then the field becomes pretty close with Blallo in the rear.
The WP Bench scores were much more distributed with WordPress.com and GreenGeeks taking second and third respectively.
Seravo had the slowest WP Bench but operates in a cluster, which is a good reminder that WPPerformanceTester is single threaded. Which is why it's a nice piece of information but doesn't necessarily determine real world performance.
SSL Testing Results
The tool is available at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/
|Company||Qualsys SSL Grade|
GreenGeeks, Pressable, Seravo, Servebolt and WordPress.com all earned A+'s.
Cloudways, Nexcess, Presslabs, and SiteGround earned A's.
Blallo earned a B.
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.
No company achieved this status.