Here’s the 42nd Monthly Hosting Performance Contest Roundup for July 2019!
I’ve been testing 15 hosts in a non-stop manner the whole month and I’ll show you the results below. In general, this contest’s results can be described as “More hosts with 100% uptime and more hosts with worse Satisfactory Apdex (speed stability)”.
By the way, you can find the latest roundups here and the performance tables and charts here.
All monitored hosts are presented in the pricing categories according to the most affordable plan they have. Also, I bought the most affordable plans available at each hosting company to test hosting performance.
Let’s see how the hosts hosts performed in July 2019!
Common Information
As you may already know, I’ve been monitoring the performance of some of the best hosting providers I know as well as some other well-known hosts.
In short, since 2013 I’ve been picking out great hosts judging by real users reviews, professional hosting community opinion, long honorable business experience and other factors which make a great hosting.
And I buy anonymously hosting accounts with different hosts in order to closely monitor their performance (basically, uptime checked every minute and full page load time checked every 20 minutes) using a professional monitoring service monitis.com. I buy the most basic and the cheapest plan of each hosting. You can read about my monitoring methodology here.
And I’m happy to share these statistics with you so that you could see how these hosts perform and who is the best from the best!
You can find some real-time performance charts on my recommended hosts page for the hosting which I’ve been recommending and monitoring.
Also, you can see real-time monitoring charts for all hosts that I am monitoring on this page. In addition, the page contains monthly historical data on hosting performance (speed, uptime, satisfactory apdex) – very interesting and useful.
Besides, you may read more information about this Hosting Performance Contest on this page. I will be adding monthly and yearly Contest results on the page too.
And other monthly Hosting Performance Contest roundups are available from here.
Please note that although all hosts mentioned in this post are well-established and considered to be very good, I highly recommend not all of them. My recommended hosts are here.
July 2019 Hosting Contest Video Overview (some fun included)
I’ve created a video overview with the results of this month’s contest. To add some fun 🙂 Enjoy!
By the way, Subscribe to my YouTube channel if you have not already! 🙂
July 2019 Hosting Performance Contest – Results
Here are the fifteen hosts that you can compare this month. I’ve broken down them in three groups: very affordable (below $5/mo), middle class (upto $8/mo) and more expensive ($8+/mo).
- SiteGround (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- GeekStorage (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- A2Hosting (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- VeeroTech (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- MDDHosting (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- HawkHost (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- Squidix (I recommend it, here’s my review)
- InMotionHosting
- StableHost
- HostWinds
- LunarPages
- MochaHost
- Eleven2
- GreenGeeks
- GlowHost
You’ll see a breakdown of hosting performance by prices in the sections below.
Let’s start from an overview of the hosting performance in the order of how the hosts performed in general regardless of how affordable or expensive the hosts are.
The winner of this month’s contest is MDDHosting!.
In the Top-3 also go VeeroTech and SiteGround.
What’s remarkable about the winners this month is that all hosts are from different pricing categories.
MDDHosting took the 1st place. Its full page load time (1.11) seconds was amazingly fast. And its uptime (99.99%) was almost perfect and very much above the highest standards set for the greatest hosts (99.9%). My site was not available this month for just 4.5 minutes. As regards Satisfactory Apdex, it was simply perfect 100% which of course is above the benchmark level (99%) determined for the greatest hosts. The host surpassed the benchmark tests and thanks to the best speed it got the gold this month!
The silver medalist is VeeroTech.
VeeroTech performed wonderfully well and satisfied both benchmarks set for great hosts. Its average speed was 1.12 seconds which is astonishingly fast. It was slower than the leader by just 0.01 seconds. And its uptime (99.99%) was almost perfect and much above the benchmark level (99.9%) set for the greatest hosts. My site hosted with this hosting was available all the time this month except 4.5 minutes. The host’s Satisfactory Apdex (100%) was simply perfect and of course much above the highest standards (99%). And since this hosting was the second fastest host among the hosts which exceeded all the benchmarks determined for the greatest hosts VeeroTech wins the silver medal. Although the difference with the winner was barely distinguishable.
The bronze medal goes to SiteGround.
Average full page load time of SiteGround was 1.15 seconds (it’s super fast). It was slower than the leader by just 0.04 seconds. Its Uptime was simply perfect 100%. My site hosted with this host was available all the time during the whole month. And the host’s Satisfactory Apdex was also very high 99.9% (i.e. 99.9% of the time during this month the full page load time was less than 2.5 seconds). All these parameters are much above the benchmarks specified for the greatest hosting performance. And since this hosting was the third fastest host among the hosts which exceeded all the benchmarks determined for the greatest hosts SiteGround wins the bronze medal.
In this month GreenGeeks took the 4th place in the Contest. This month my site was on average as fast as 1.55 seconds that is great. And its uptime was simply perfect 100% which is much above the highest standards set for the best hosts (99.9%). My site hosted with this host was available all the time during this month. And its Satisfactory Apdex was 99.15% (i.e. 99.15% of the time the full page load time of my website hosted with this host was less than 2.5 seconds). It was very good and above the highest standards set for the best hosts (99%). Great!
LunarPages has got the 5th place this month. It performed as fast as 1.55 seconds which is pretty fast. Its uptime (99.99%) was almost perfect and very much above the highest standards level set for the greatest hosts (99.9%). My site hosted with this host was available all the time during this month except 4.5 minutes. And the Satisfactory Apdex was well above the highest standards as well – 99.81% (99.81% of the time this month the speed was faster than 2.5 seconds). It’s above the highest standards (99%) too. Great!
HostWinds goes to the 6th place. Its 1.63 seconds full page load time was very good. Its uptime (99.99%) was almost perfect and of course much above the benchmark level which is set for great hosts (99.9%). My site was available all the time during this month except 4.5 minutes. This host had Satisfactory Apdex 99.01% which was above the benchmark set for the greatest hosts (99%). Impressive results this month!
Other hosts could not meet at least one of the benchmarks set for the best hosting. However, the results of some hosts were very close to the benchmarks and pretty good in general.
A2Hosting took the 7th place with 1.24 seconds speed, which is brilliant. But it had uptime (99.53%) which is a bit below the highest standards (99.9%) set for the greatest hosts. My site hosted with this host was not available this month for 3.5 hours. Also, it had a very high Satisfactory Apdex – 99.67%. It means that 99.67% of the time in this month my testing site was faster than 2.5 seconds in this month. This is very well above the highest benchmark (99%) which is set for great hosts. Failed uptime did not let this host get higher in the rankings.
HawkHost took the 8th place. The host performed in this month as fast as 1.26 seconds which is impressively fast. Its uptime was simply perfect 100%. My site hosted with this host was available all the time during the whole month. And the Satisfactory Apdex was quite good in general – 98.97% (99.97% of the time the speed was faster than 2.5 seconds). It’s a little bit below the highest standards set for great hosting which is 99%. Failed Apdex did not let the host go higher in the rankings, although it was a great performance!
GeekStorage took the 9th place. Like the previous host, it performed very well, but a little bit failed Satisfactory Apdex brought the host lower in the rankings. In this month the host’s speed as as fast as 1.36 seconds which is impressively fast. Its uptime was simply perfect 100%. My site hosted with this host was available all the time during the whole month. And the Satisfactory Apdex was quite good in general – 98.78% (99.78% of the time the speed was faster than 2.5 seconds). It’s a little bit below the highest standards set for great hosting which is 99%. Great performance in general!
MochaHost took the 9th place this month.. Its speed was pretty good (1.57 seconds). But its uptime (97.09%) was below the benchmark (99.9%). My site was not available for 22.65 hours this month. This host’s Satisfactory Apdex (96.54%) was not bad, but below the benchmark level (99%). Because of the seriously failed uptime benchmark test this host did not get higher in the rankings.
In this month StableHost took the 11th place in the Contest. It was on average as fast as 1.64 seconds that is really fast. And its uptime (99.08%) was not very good and below the benchmark value set for the greatest hosts (99.9%). My site hosted with this host was not available for 6.84 hours. And its Satisfactory Apdex was generally good – 98.83% (i.e. 98.83% of all the time full page load time of my website hosted with this host was less than 2.5 seconds). It’s a little bit below the benchmark level set for the greatest hosts (99%). Not the best month for this host.
Squidix took the 12th place. Its average speed was very good (1.69 seconds full page load time). The uptime of Squidix was generally good 99.86%, but it’s a little bit below the benchmark level (99.9%). My site was not available for 1.04 minutes this month. And the host’s Satisfactory Apdex (96.49%) was below the highest standards (99%).
InMotionHosting took the 13th place. The host had generally good speed (1.73 seconds on average). And it had uptime (99.98%) which is superb and much above the highest standards (99.9%). My site hosted with this hosting was not available for just 8.09 minutes this month. But its Satisfactory Apdex (96.17%) was below the benchmark (99%). 96.17% of the time the site was slower than 2.5 seconds. Not bad performance in general.
Eleven2 got the 14th place. Its average speed (2.21 secs) was generally okay. Its uptime was 99.9%, which is exactly at the benchmark level (99.9%) set for the greatest hosts. My site was not available for 44.6 minutes this month. The host’s Satisfactory Apdex (91.83%) was below the highest standards (99%) though.
GlowHost went to the last 15th place this month. This host could not get higher because of its bad speed. Its uptime (99.92%) was brilliant, and above the benchmark level (99.9%) which is set to determine the greatest hosts. My site was not available for 35.7 minutes this month. And the host’s speed was slow (3.58 seconds). And as expected, its Satisfactory Apdex (0%) was the lowest possible value; and it was far from reaching the benchmark level (99%). The loading time of my test website was lower than 2.5 seconds during the whole month.
Generally, the competition of the monitored hosts this month was pretty tight as usual, especially among the better performing hosts.
By the way, keep in mind, that for this Contest I pick out the hosts which are considered to be good, great and superb. These hosts are established businesses for many years and some of them are widely recommended in the Internet. So, the idea of this Contest is to determine the best performing hosts from a technical point of view, giving you objective information for making your own decision regarding hosts.
Let’s see now the results in tables and charts for more convenience, more information and more insight.
Here’s a table view to compare the Hosting Performance Contest results in July 2019:
Table column notes:
Place: The place a hosting has won in this Contest (the less the better).
Load Time: Average Full Page Load Time (the less the better). Checked every 20 minutes.
Uptime: Uptime (the more the better). Checked every minute.
Superb Uptime: If Uptime Benchmark (99.9%) passed (YES is very good).
Apdex-S: Satisfactory Apdex, i.e. how often a test website on a tested hosting was loading faster than 2.5 sec (the more the Apdex-S the better). Checked every 20 minutes.
Superb Apdex-S: If Satisfactory Apdex benchmark (99%) passed (YES is very good).
Color areas: Green is superb and above the highest standards. The greener, the better. Yellow is good, but below the highest standards. Orange is not very good; worse than yellow. Red is comparatively the worst.
Here’s a table with hosting prices:
1 year: Regular prices (after the first invoice) for 1-year plan.
2 years: Regular prices (after the first invoice) for 2-year plan.
3 years: Regular prices (after the first invoice) for 3-year plan.
Min Price: The minimum price officially available for the first invoice (can be for 1-year, 2-year or 3-year plan).
Limited-time offers with more discounts are not included in these prices. Check out if there are special offers currently available by visiting the hosting websites.
Worthy: This column contains my recommended hosts. (Under review label means that the host performs well or/and has a good potential in winning prizes in the Contest, but I want to have more proved records of its technical and support performance.)
Here’s a table with places within pricing categories:
Since it’s not always correct to compare hosts from different price categories together, I’ve broken down the monitored hosts into three categories to compete within as you can see above in the table.
The prices presented in this table are regular prices (i.e. applied after the first invoice). Note that prices for the first invoice (1-,2- or 3-year plan) are usually less (see them in the previous table). And special promo prices are not included (check them out on the hosting websites).
And here are the charts with the Hosting Performance Contest results in July 2019:
1. The golden medalist: MDDHosting (it’s in my list of the recommended hosts; see my review).
2. The silver medalist: VeeroTech (it’s in my list of the recommended hosts; see my review).
3. The bronze medalist: SiteGround (it’s in my list of the recommended hosts; see my review).
July 2019 Hosting Performance Contest Results – Notes
I use monitis.com services for uptime and full page load monitoring. The monitoring is performed from two locations in order to decrease chances of false alerts and make monitoring results more objective. You can read more about my methodology of monitoring here.
Here are the monthly monitoring reports screenshots:
These monitor checks are performed with 1-minute interval, which makes it great for detecting website uptime and downtime.
So, we need Uptime values from this table for finding the winner of our Contest.
By the way, downtime is detected if server response time (time-to-first-byte) is more than 10 seconds.
Other values (just for information):
– Response time is not that important for this Contest, because I’ve got a better indicator monitored, which is Full page load time (see below).
– Number of failures may be interesting to look at, but this is just an additional information to Uptime, which is more important for the overall hosting evaluation.
Just four hosts on the screenshot have not passed the uptime benchmark test (99.9%) for the greatest hosting. The other hosts I’m monitoring were up more than 99.9% in July. The websites on the uptime-failed hosting were not available for more than 44.6 minutes in total this month.
These tests are performed with 20-minute interval from two locations. It makes it a perfect real-user performance monitor. This monitor’s activity is equal to 144 unique visitors per day (about 4,320 unique visitors per month).
Avg Test Duration is the Full page load time, which is very clear and important factor for the Hosting Performance Contest.
We don’t need Uptime from this table because we have got a better (more precise) Uptime indicator from the previous table.
Also, we don’t need Failures from this table, because it’s less precise than the same indicator from the previous table.
But we will need Apdex, particularly its S (Satisfactory) part. This shows how much time (in %) the website loaded faster than 2.5 seconds.
Conclusion
The best hosts which have demonstrated the best performance in July 2019 are the medalists: MDDHosting, VeeroTech and SiteGround.
By the way, all the top winners have passed the strict benchmarks determined for great hosting!
As regards the winners in different pricing categories, here they are:
The best hosts in the higher pricing category ($8+/mo) in this month go in the following order: SiteGround, GreenGeeks and A2Hosting.
The best three hosts in the middle pricing category ($5.01-8/mo) in this month are VeeroTech and HostWinds and GeekStorage.
The best three hosts in the most affordable pricing category (up to $5/mo) in this month are MDDHosting, LunarPages and HawkHost.
Please note, that I’m using the cheapest plans available on each of the monitored hosts.
It’s noticeable as usual that some of the less expensive hosts outperformed hosts from more expensive categories.
And the hero of the Contest this month is MDDHosting. This is the hosting which was the best performing for the smallest price!
You can download a PDF version of this article (586 KB):
BTW, I respect your privacy, and of course I don't send spam, affiliate offers or trade your emails. What I send is information that I consider useful.
very nice article it’s very helpful
Glad you liked it. Kaleem! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. I’d be happy to help.
Michael,
Thanks for the contests and making things clear. I am new to even some of the hosts like VeeroTech, LunarPages. I have no experience with it. Keep doing your good works.
Thanks Jenna. Indeed some of the hosts in the Contest are not well-known. But all of them are well-established businesses. It’s interesting to me (and I hope to others too) to see how the hosts from different categories compare.