Bluehost Review and Stats
Bluehost claims to have unbeatable technology, optimized hosting for wordpress, and genuine support. They have been around since 2003 and hosts over 2 million websites worldwide. Their data centers are located in Provo, Utah.
I have purchased a hosting plan on Bluehost and set up a typical web site. I use that example website to run these tests. Learn more about how I test.
Here's the plan information I chose:
| Plan Name | Basic Shared |
| Cost | $9.99/month |
| Disk Space | 50 GB |
| Bandwidth | Unlimited |
| Uptime Guarantee | None |
| Money-Back Guarantee | 30 days |
| Notes | Site was ready within minutes after I purchased. Although when I signed up I was under the impression it was a monthly plan, but it was billed annually (at $83.40). They have called and left me several messages to 'verify' my account, but when I call back I'm placed on hold (so I hang up). I'm assuming they're just trying to upsell me, or my account will forever be in 'unverified' status. |
On this page: Uptime | Speed | Support | Alternatives
Uptime Test
This test is performed by measuring the % uptime of a host. Higher is better.
I use Pingdom to report website uptime. Pingdom is configured to make an HTTP request to the host every minute, and report if it is unreachable. It'll also report an error if the host takes longer than 30 seconds to respond (Yes, that's not actually down, but if your site takes that long to respond it is unusable in my opinion). Pingdom performs this test from at least 3 servers worldwide, and reports a problem if 2/3 servers do no respond.
This test is important if you are concerned about the reliability of your web host (this is important!)
Bluehost Uptime Test Results
Bluehost performs okay in the Uptime test, with an average result of 99.94 percent. Its best run was 100.00 %, but has been as bad as 84.93 %. Bluehost's most recent result on Jul 18 was 100.00 percent. Bluehost had a terrible day back in August that's bringing their average uptime way down. Other than that they're usually pretty reliable.
Let's see if Bluehost is consistent in its uptime stats:
Recent Raw Results for Bluehost
| Date | Uptime | Downtime | Outages | Avg Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 446 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 477 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 499 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 475 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 452 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 454 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 489 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 502 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 453 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 466 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 502 ms | |
| 99.931 % | 1 mins | 1 | 500 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 445 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 439 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 438 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 451 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 456 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 473 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 427 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 444 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 453 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 433 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 435 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 449 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 438 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 442 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 439 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 487 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 435 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 436 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 429 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 414 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 418 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 454 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 502 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 520 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 581 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 586 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 478 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 496 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 504 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 535 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 544 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 526 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 508 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 513 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 510 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 510 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 508 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 509 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 526 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 526 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 522 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 454 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 479 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 538 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 481 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 482 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 497 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 458 ms |
Page Speed Test
This test measures the total time it takes to load a standard web page. Lower is better.
This test is performed by submitting a typical web page served on the host to WebPageTest and recording how long it takes to load. This test web page is 56 KB of HTML, 287 KB of JavaScript, 51 KB of CSS, and 1,128 KB of images (these are typical according to the HTTP Archive). WebPageTest (a 3rd-party, vendor-neutral organization) uses servers located in Virgina and California to measure the page load waterfall in the latest version of Chrome, on a very fast internet connection. The test is ran 5 times each, and the middle (median) result is what is counted from each location. Then the east coast and west coast times are averaged, which should eliminate any bias due to server location. We're interested in first page load, not the repeat/cached view.
If you're really interested, I use the 'Load Time' measurement that's returned from WebPageTest for ranking page speed. I still collect other metrics such as TTFB
(time to first byte), fully loaded time, and the speed index, in addition to server setting scores which are translated to grades. You can see these detailed values in the "Raw Results."
This test is important if your site resembles a typical website and you're concerned about speed (which you should be!)
In September 2014 I updated this test to be more accurate, and you'll notice page speeds were a bit higher before then. The test used to be run only 3 times from one location using a simulated cable internet connection on Internet Explorer 11. The new method provides much more consistent results.
Bluehost Page Speed Test Results
Bluehost performs great in the Page Speed test, with an average result of 3.05 seconds. Its best run was 0.30 s, but has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost's most recent result on Mar 23 was 2.38 seconds. Bluehost is usually pretty inconsistent with its page speeds - sometimes quicker than other hosts, sometimes slower. Its slowest times are usually when accessed from the east coast. While they do optimize connections and compress images, they fail to set caching properly for repeat views.
Let's see if Bluehost is consistent in its page speed stats:
Recent Raw Results for Bluehost
| Date | Location | Load time | TTFB | Fully loaded | Speed index | Keep-alive Score | Compress Score | Caching Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.6s | 2.7s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.9s | 0.8s | 3.0s | 1.2s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.4s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.5s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.7s | 0.6s | 2.7s | 1.1s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.5s | 2.7s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 3.3s | 0.1s | 3.4s | 1.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.9s | 0.9s | 3.0s | 1.3s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 3.1s | 1.0s | 3.2s | 1.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.7s | 0.7s | 2.8s | 1.1s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.6s | 2.7s | 1.1s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.4s | 0.7s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.7s | 0.5s | 2.8s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
Does Bluehost Suck?
Some people may think Bluehost sucks. Here are some real benchmarks to show you Bluehost's speed, reliability, and support - so you can see if they really do suck.
Is Bluehost slow?
This test measures the total time it takes to load a standard web page. Lower is better. Learn more about the Page Speed Test.
Bluehost performs stellar in the Page Speed test, with an average result of 3.05 seconds. Its best run was 0.30 s, but has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost's most recent result on Mar 23 was 2.38 seconds. Bluehost is usually pretty inconsistent with its page speeds - sometimes quicker than other hosts, sometimes slower. Its slowest times are usually when accessed from the east coast. While they do optimize connections and compress images, they fail to set caching properly for repeat views.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Bluehost had some poor page speed performance:
| Date | Location | Load time | TTFB | Fully loaded | Speed index | Keep-alive Score | Compress Score | Caching Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None found! | ||||||||
Is Bluehost unreliable?
This test is performed by measuring the % uptime of a host. Higher is better. Learn more about the Uptime Test.
Bluehost performs okay in the Uptime test, with an average result of 99.94 percent. Its best run was 100.00 %, but has been as bad as 84.93 %. Bluehost's most recent result on Jul 18 was 100.00 percent. Bluehost had a terrible day back in August that's bringing their average uptime way down. Other than that they're usually pretty reliable.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Bluehost had some poor uptime performance:
| Date | Uptime | Downtime | Outages | Avg Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None found! | ||||
Does Bluehost's have poor customer service?
This test measures how quickly the host's support team responds to your request. Lower is better. Learn more about the Support Response Test.
Bluehost performs miserably in the Support Response test, with an average result of 34.7 hours. Its best run was 0.1 h, but has been as bad as 168.0 h. Bluehost's most recent result on Mar 2016 was 168.0 hours. Bluehost is pretty inconsistent in its response times. I've seen instances where they get back to you in minutes, and other times I've had to wait days.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Bluehost had some poor support response performance:
| Date | Support Ticket Submitted | Support Ticket Resolved | Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 4:18pm | Over 7 days | 168.0 hours | |
| Nov 28, 4:31pm | Dec 1, 1:02pm | 68.4 hours | |
| Oct 26, 10:53am | Oct 28, 12:41pm | 49.0 hours | |
| Aug 9, 2:41pm | Aug 10, 8:20am | 17.7 hours |
Still think Bluehost sucks?
I've presented you with lots of data that will show you whether or not Bluehost sucks. So, what do you think? Are they reliable, fast, and helpful? If not, consider these Bluehost alternatives.
Support Response Test
This test measures how quickly the host's support team responds to your request. Lower is better.
I personally contact each host's support department with a new question/concern and measure how long it takes for them to get back to me.
This test is important for every host - it's imperative your web host is able to quickly address your concerns in a timely manner, even if you're an expert webmaster. Who wants to deal with a host that has poor customer service? Tech is hard, and tech support is critical!
Bluehost Support Response Test Results
Bluehost performs pretty poorly in the Support Response test, with an average result of 34.7 hours. Its best run was 0.1 h, but has been as bad as 168.0 h. Bluehost's most recent result on Mar 2016 was 168.0 hours. Bluehost is pretty inconsistent in its response times. I've seen instances where they get back to you in minutes, and other times I've had to wait days.
Let's see if Bluehost is consistent in its support response stats:
Recent Raw Results for Bluehost
| Date | Support Ticket Submitted | Support Ticket Resolved | Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 4:18pm | Over 7 days | 168.0 hours | |
| Feb 24, 3:25am | Feb 24, 3:38am | 0.2 hours | |
| Jan 27, 5:49am | Jan 27, 11:42am | 5.9 hours | |
| Dec 20, 2:48pm | Dec 20, 2:57pm | 0.2 hours | |
| Nov 28, 4:31pm | Dec 1, 1:02pm | 68.4 hours | |
| Oct 26, 10:53am | Oct 28, 12:41pm | 49.0 hours | |
| Sept 6, 6:44pm | Sept 6, 6:46pm | 0.1 hours | |
| Aug 9, 2:41pm | Aug 10, 8:20am | 17.7 hours | |
| July 13, 2:01pm | July 13, 4:30pm | 2.5 hours |
Bluehost Alternatives: Better speed, reliability, and support
Are you having problems with Bluehost? It's not uncommon to want to change to a better host if your current host has issues with being slow, down, or unsupportive.
Let's see if we can find a Bluehost competitor that has better uptime, faster load times, and speedier support.
Hosts faster than Bluehost
This test measures the total time it takes to load a standard web page. Lower is better. Learn more about the Page Speed Test.
If Bluehost is having page speed problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Hosts more reliable than Bluehost
This test is performed by measuring the % uptime of a host. Higher is better. Learn more about the Uptime Test.
If Bluehost is having uptime problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Hosts more helpful than Bluehost
This test measures how quickly the host's support team responds to your request. Lower is better. Learn more about the Support Response Test.
If Bluehost is having support response problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Bluehost Versus Other Hosts
If you're trying to decide between Bluehost and another host, here's are some specific comparisons that will show you the differences in detail:
Yes, I do use affiliate links on this site to help cover the cost of testing and $1000+ per year in server charges. Results are 100% unbiased and never skewed to favor a higher commission. Thanks for understanding :)
© 2014-2018 Down.com