Hosting Performance Contest: Choose The Best From The Best

Share this!
Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Linkedin

hosting performance contest

You’ve probably seen a lot of hosting recommendations on different websites and blogs promising that this or that host is very good. But what’s missing there is the proof of the hosting performance.

On this page I’m filling this gap for you. I’m showing you the performance contest results of my picked webhosts.

See below the table of contents for easy navigation for the contest results and for Questions and Answers.

Why is continuous performance monitoring a crucial part of choosing a host?

Although many hosting companies may announce 99.9% or even higher Service level agreement (SLA), take it with a bit of salt. You may think that it means that your website will be that much uptime and accessible, but this is not exactly so. There may be some factors that are not included in SLA, or just there may be some unexpected hardware issues, short overloading periods, network issues, hosting support actions or human errors etc.
Thus, it’s hard to judge what the hosting true reliability is and how much uptime you will get in the real life until you monitor it.

Some hosting reviews have just one-time performance monitoring snapshots. But it is obviously not enough for judging the webhost performance, because performance differs throughout the years and months. Or even within one day host performance may be very different. I monitor the hosts constantly and continuously and show you the results on this page.

Someone’s feeling that some host is functioning fine may also be misleading. Without continuous monitoring of the hosting performance it’s not easy to distinguish a good host from a very good host or a good host from a mediocre one.

That’s why I’ve decided to gather real data both in real-time and historically to compare performance of websites on different hosting.

What do I mean under hosting performance in my hosting performance contests?

I consider server uptime, full page load time and Apdex (application performance index) as the factors for the contest.
You can see below more details about how they are monitored and calculated.

How do I choose hosts to monitor their performance?

After analyzing real users reviews and professional hosting community opinion I pick out the hosts that are the best I could find in their market segment.

In general, the hosts I’ve picked out are already very good hosts and you can go with any of them.

However, nothing speaks better than pure vivid facts. That’s why I anonymously buy hosting at these hosts and monitor their performance. And I share this information with you.

Why do I monitor just several hosts?

Monitoring service of this kind (high frequency of full page load time monitoring) as well as buying hosting and domains requires some budget. That’s why I don’t monitor all the hosts at the moment I would like. But I will be adding more and more hosts to the monitoring.

Do I inform the hosts that I’m monitoring them?

No, I don’t tell them about it (I do it totally anonymously), because I want it to be a clear experiment.

Hosting is bought as usual and it’s bought not by me.

Also, the domain names I use for the test websites are not registered to me.

Besides, the domain names are just something not specific, i.e. they are not sort of stablehost-test.com or something like that.

So it’s not easy to guess which website is the test website.

In short, I keep it all anonymous.

Also, my affiliate accounts with the hosting companies are not connected with the hosts in any way.
And here’s a standard notice required by hosting companies:

Disclosure: There are some affiliate links on this page. In other words, I get paid if you click on the links and make a purchase. All such links open in new window/tab; no software/program will be installed to your computer.

Is it really enough to judge a host by this kind of monitoring?

Yes and no.

Yes, because this monitoring shows how a shared hosting account works literally every minute.

And no because this is just a sort of sample test. In other words, hosting company may have many servers and they may perform differently, wheres my monitoring is watching just one shared hosting account.

However, this kind of monitoring is 100% objective and gives us much more precise data than any personal real user opinion on how this or that hosting performs. That’s why this monitoring is very important and can be used for decision making which host to choose.

What kind of websites do I monitor?

On each monitored hosting I’ve got similar test website based on WordPress.
Each test website is hosted on the most affordable plan of a particular hosting.

All test websites are made practically equal in order to run these comparison monitoring tests in as much equal conditions as possible.

Each website has the same WordPress theme and contains a number of blog posts with many hundreds of words with images in every post. The front page displays extracts from the first 10 posts with featured images.

No caching or other website load speed optimization plugins are installed on the test websites to make the testing of hosting performance reliable.

What exactly is monitored?

I’m using monitis.com services for monitoring my test websites.

There are two monitors for each website:

  1. HTTP server response time (Time To First Byte):
    • Tests are performed every 1 minute.
    • Test results are measured in milliseconds.
    • The main purpose of these tests is uptime monitoring.
  2. Full page load time (How long it takes to fully load a page for a real user)
    • Tests are performed every 15 minutes.
    • Test results are measured in seconds.
    • The main purpose of these tests is to estimate the real user experience regarding speed of website loading on a particular hosting.

The tests for each host are performed from different US East and US West locations.

The load of websites which is impacted by the monitoring system is equal to 192 unique visitors per day (about 5,760 unique visitors per month) distributed evenly.

How to read real-time monitoring charts?

Looking at real-time charts on the page with my recommended hosting keep in mind that a host may be considered to be down at a particular moment if both locations are showing downtime. A failure at one location may be because of a network issue on the way between the testing location and the hosting server, i.e. the issue is not connected with the hosting. Whereas one location may show downtime, from any other place the website may be loading fine.

That’s why I’m monitoring the hosting performance from not one location, but from two locations. This is to decrease the chances that the tests could give me false positives (false positive is when a connection error is detected whereas the hosting server and my test website is fine).

How are the aggregated (monthly etc) statistics calculated?

HTTP response time is calculated as the sum of the best response times from all locations, divided by the number OKs during the reporting period. Thus the value can be less than the average response time for each location.

Uptime calculation is based on http response time. The uptime is calculated as number of simultaneous NOKs (downtimes) from all locations divided by the number of checks (NOKs+Oks).

NOK (downtime) is considered when http response time is more than 10 seconds for all locations simultaneously.

Full page load time is calculated as the average of the best full page load times from all locations.

Apdex (Application Performance Index) is calculated as the average of the best Apdex from all locations.
Apdex for each test location is calculated by Monitis as “(Satisfied Count + Tolerating Count / 2) / Total Samples“. The levels for Apdex are the following: Satisfactory full page load time is below 2.5 seconds, tolerating is below 10 seconds, and frustrating is above 10 seconds.

Satisfactory Apdex shows how often (in percentage of all time) the site was loading faster than 2.5 seconds. On other words, it can be treated as how much a user is satisfied with hosting speed.

How are hosting contest results calculated?

I take into account the following factors (the most important ones in my opinion):

  1. Uptime
  2. Satisfactory Apdex (the percentage of time when a test website on a particular hosting is loading faster than 2.5 seconds)
  3. Average full page load time (i.e. how fast hosting in general it is)

A hosting is awarded as a winner if it has the best (the smallest) average full page load time provided its uptime is above 99.9% and its Satisfactory Apdex is above 99%.

In other words, I pick out the best from the best hosting: uptime for these hosts is really high and its performance is continuously superb.

Hosting Performance Contest Roundups

February 2016

In February 2016 I’ve been monitoring three hosting: StableHost, HawkHost and VeeroTech. All these hosts are great and they are in the list of my recommended hosts.

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in February 2016 is VeeroTech. Its average full page load time is 1.18 seconds, uptime is 99.97% and satisfactory Apdex is 99.8.
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The second prize goes to HawkHost with uptime 99.98%, average full page load time 1.27 seconds and satisfactory Apdex 99.91.
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The third place is taken by StableHost. Its uptime is 99.73%, average full page load time is 0.88 seconds and satisfactory Apdex is 99.60.

 
Although StableHost has the best average full page load time (and a good satisfactory Apdex), its uptime this month was below the highest targeted standards 99.9%. That’s why it does not win the first prize.

By the way, keep in mind that although 100% uptime is desirable (and maybe even expected by you by default), it’s pretty hard (and maybe very expensive) to achieve on long periods of time such as a month or longer. So, I consider that 99.9% uptime is a very good level for shared hosting (which means that a website may be inaccessible for just 86 seconds per day).

You can read more about February 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.

 

March 2016

In March 2016 I’ve been monitoring four hosting: StableHost, VeeroTech, HawkHost and GlowHost. First three of them are great and they are in the list of my recommended hosts.

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in March 2016 is StableHost. Its average full page load time is 1.17 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and satisfactory Apdex is 99.92. Very impressive results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The second prize goes to VeeroTech with uptime 99.93%, average full page load time 1.19 seconds and satisfactory Apdex 99.92. It’s really close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The third place is taken by HawkHost. Its uptime is 99.9%, average full page load time is 1.26 seconds and satisfactory Apdex is 99.88.

 
The fourth host (GlowHost) did a good job on uptime (99.96%). And its speed was not bad (2.31 seconds), althought it was slower that the others. Also, its performance was not very stable (Satisfactory Apdex is 90.64). It’s not bad, but this is below the highest standards. So, this host goes to the last place.

By the way, keep in mind that although 100% uptime is desirable (and maybe even expected by you by default), it’s pretty hard (and maybe very expensive) to achieve on long periods of time such as a month or longer. So, I consider that 99.9% uptime is a very good level for shared hosting (which means that a website may be inaccessible for just 86 seconds per day).

You can read more about March 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.

 

April 2016

In April 2016 I’ve been monitoring seven hosting:

  1. StableHost
  2. GeekStorage
  3. Squidix
  4. VeeroTech
  5. HawkHost
  6. GlowHost
  7. Eleven2

First five of them are great and they are in the list of my recommended hosts.

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in April 2016 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.01 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Nearly perfect results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The second prize goes to Squidix with uptime 99.97%, average full page load time 1.09 seconds and satisfactory Apdex 99.9%. It’s very close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The third place is taken by StableHost. Its uptime is 99.96%, average full page load time is 1.37 seconds and satisfactory Apdex is 99.21%. Really good in the line with more expensive leaders!

 
VeeroTech and HawkHost did pretty good job, but their uptime was a bit below the highest standards, and that’s why they could not fight for the prize.

GlowHost was comparatively slower than the above hosts.

And a bad failure was with Eleven2, whose uptime was awful.

By the way, keep in mind that although 100% uptime is desirable (and maybe even expected by you by default), it’s pretty hard (and maybe very expensive) to achieve on long periods of time such as a month or longer. So, I consider that 99.9% uptime is a very good level for shared hosting (which means that a website may be inaccessible for just 86 seconds per day).

You can read more about April 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.

 

May 2016

In May 2016 I’ve been monitoring nine hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. A2Hosting
  3. Squidix
  4. HawkHost
  5. InMotionHosting
  6. VeeroTech
  7. StableHost
  8. Eleven2
  9. GlowHost

There are two main categories of hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $5/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in May 2016 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 0.92 seconds, uptime is whooping 100.00% and satisfactory Apdex is 99.96%. Very well done!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to A2Hosting with uptime 99.97%, average full page load time 0.99 seconds and satisfactory Apdex 99.91%. It’s very close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by Squidix. Its average full page load time is 1.1 seconds, uptime is 99.97% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.75%. Very strong in the leadership!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest May 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in May 2016.

As you can see, all three leaders are from the higher pricing category.

And the three winners in the budget hosting category are HawkHost, VeeroTech and StableHost.

You can read more about May 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.

 

June 2016

In June 2016 I’ve been monitoring 13 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. Squidix
  4. StableHost
  5. VeeroTech
  6. HawkHost
  7. InMotionHosting
  8. A2Hosting
  9. MochaHost
  10. LunarPages
  11. HostWinds
  12. Eleven2
  13. GlowHost

There are two main categories of hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $5/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in June 2016 is InMotionHosting. Its average full page load time is 0.82 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.85%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to A2Hosting. Its average full page load time is 0.93 seconds, uptime is also 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.92%. It’s very close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.0 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.96%. Very strong in the top 3!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest June 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in June 2016.

As you can see, all three leaders are from the higher pricing category.

And the three winners in the budget hosting category are LunarPages, HostWinds and StableHost.

You can read more about June 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

July 2016

In July 2016 I’ve been monitoring 14 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. Squidix
  4. StableHost
  5. VeeroTech
  6. HawkHost
  7. InMotionHosting
  8. A2Hosting
  9. MochaHost
  10. LunarPages
  11. HostWinds
  12. GreenGeeks
  13. Eleven2
  14. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in July 2016 is InMotionHosting. Its average full page load time is 0.81 seconds, uptime is 99.95% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.75%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to A2Hosting. Its average full page load time is 0.92 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. It’s very close to the winner regarding speed!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.02 seconds, uptime is perfect 100% (!) and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.93%. Very strong in the top 3!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest July 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in July 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. LunarPages,
  2. HawkHost (with 100% uptime!),
  3. StableHost.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage (with 100% uptime!),
  2. SiteGround,
  3. HostWinds.

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are:

  1. InMotionHosting,
  2. A2Hosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about July 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

August 2016

In August 2016 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. StableHost
  4. VeeroTech
  5. HawkHost
  6. MDDHosting
  7. Squidix
  8. InMotionHosting
  9. A2Hosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in August 2016 is InMotionHosting. Its average full page load time is 1.24 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.34%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to A2Hosting. Its average full page load time is 1.27 seconds, uptime is 99.96% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.69%. It’s very close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by Veerotech. Its average full page load time is 1.56 seconds, uptime is nearly perfect 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.03%. Very good for top 3!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest August 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in August 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. VeeroTech,
  2. MDDHosting,
  3. LunarPages.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. HostWinds,
  2. GeekStorage,
  3. SiteGround.

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. InMotionHosting,
  2. A2Hosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about August 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

September 2016

In September 2016 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. MDDHosting
  2. SiteGround
  3. GeekStorage
  4. VeeroTech
  5. StableHost
  6. HawkHost
  7. Squidix
  8. A2Hosting
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in September 2016 is MDDHosting. Its average full page load time is 1.48 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to HostWinds. Its average full page load time is 1.5 seconds, uptime is 100% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.92%. It’s very good and close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by SiteGround. Its average full page load time is 1.5 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.21%. Breathing down the above hosts!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest September 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in September 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. MDDHosting,
  2. LunarPages,
  3. MochaHost.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. HostWinds,
  2. SiteGround.
  3. GeekStorage,

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. A2Hosting,
  2. InMotionHosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about September 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

October 2016

In October 2016 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. VeeroTech
  4. MDDHosting
  5. StableHost
  6. HawkHost
  7. Squidix
  8. A2Hosting
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in October 2016 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.34 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to HostWinds. Its average full page load time is 1.48 seconds, uptime is 100% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. It’s very good and quite close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by LunarPages. Its average full page load time is 1.53 seconds, uptime is 99.97% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.62%. Breathing down the above hosts by all metrics!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest October 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in October 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. LunarPages,
  2. VeeroTech.
  3. MDDHosting,

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage,
  2. HostWinds,
  3. SiteGround.

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. A2Hosting,
  2. InMotionHosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about October 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

November 2016

In November 2016 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. VeeroTech
  4. MDDHosting
  5. StableHost
  6. HawkHost
  7. Squidix
  8. A2Hosting
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in November 2016 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.36 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Very good results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to HostWinds. Its average full page load time is 1.38 seconds, uptime is 99.92% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. It’s very good and pretty close to the winner!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by A2Hosting. Its average full page load time is 1.45 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Tight competition by all metrics!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest November 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in November 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. LunarPages,
  2. MDDHosting,
  3. VeeroTech.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage,
  2. HostWinds,
  3. SiteGround.

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. A2Hosting,
  2. InMotionHosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about November 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

December 2016

In December 2016 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. VeeroTech
  4. MDDHosting
  5. StableHost
  6. HawkHost
  7. Squidix
  8. A2Hosting
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in December 2016 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.12 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Impressive results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to SiteGround. Its average full page load time is 1.3 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.52%. It’s very good!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by MDDHosting. Its average full page load time is 1.32 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.8%. Very tight competition for the silver and bronze medals!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest December 2016
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in December 2016.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. MDDHosting,
  2. StableHost.
  3. LunarPages.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage,
  2. SiteGround.
  3. HostWinds,

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. InMotionHosting,
  2. A2Hosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about December 2016 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

January 2017

In January 2017 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. A2Hosting
  4. StableHost
  5. VeeroTech
  6. MDDHosting
  7. HawkHost
  8. Squidix
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in January 2017 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.16 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Impressive results!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to MDDHosting. Its average full page load time is 1.3 seconds, uptime is 99.92% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.74%. It’s very good!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by SiteGround. Its average full page load time is 1.34 seconds, uptime is 99.97% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.94%. Very tight competition for the silver and bronze medals!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest January 2017
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in January 2017.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. MDDHosting,
  2. LunarPages.
  3. StableHost.

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage,
  2. SiteGround.
  3. HostWinds,

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. A2Hosting,
  2. InMotionHosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about January 2017 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

 

February 2017

In February 2017 I’ve been monitoring 15 hosting:

  1. GeekStorage
  2. SiteGround
  3. A2Hosting
  4. StableHost
  5. VeeroTech
  6. MDDHosting
  7. HawkHost
  8. Squidix
  9. InMotionHosting
  10. MochaHost
  11. LunarPages
  12. HostWinds
  13. GreenGeeks
  14. Eleven2
  15. GlowHost

There are three categories of the hosts: budget hosts (with regular renewal prices for 1-year plans below $4/mo), middle-class hosts ($4-8/mo) and more expensive hosts.

Here are the results in general standings (i.e. all hosts together):

And the winner is…

 
Hosting Performance Contest - No1
 
The best hosting among the hosts I’ve been monitoring in February 2017 is GeekStorage. Its average full page load time is 1.08 seconds, uptime is 99.99% and Satisfactory Apdex is 100%. Awesome!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No2
 
The silver medal goes to StableHost. Its average full page load time is 1.19 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.94%. It’s really good!
 
Hosting Performance Contest - No3
 
The bronze medal is taken by SiteGround. Its average full page load time is 1.3 seconds, uptime is 99.98% and Satisfactory Apdex is 99.76%. Very strong bronze medal!

 
And here’s a breakdown of the hosts in pricing categories with places each host has taken:

Hosting Performance Contest February 2017
Here you can see more result tables, charts and detailed information about Hosting Performance Contest in February 2017.

The three winners in the budget hosting category are:

  1. StableHost.
  2. VeeroTech,
  3. MDDHosting,

The three winners in the middle-class pricing category are:

  1. GeekStorage,
  2. SiteGround.
  3. HostWinds,

And the three leaders in the more expensive pricing category are in the following order:

  1. InMotionHosting,
  2. A2Hosting,
  3. Squidix.

You can read more technical details about February 2017 Hosting Performance Contest here.
 

P.S.: I will be adding on this page the Hosting Performance Contest results each month.
Also, you can see real-time performance charts of the hosts I monitor as well as historical data on the hosting performance on this page.
And my recommended hosts are here.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons