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 is 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
Contents
Uptime Test
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. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 84.931 %. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-16 | 98.000% | 17 mins | 1 | 651 ms |
| 2020-03-15 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 643 ms |
| 2020-03-14 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 668 ms |
| 2020-03-13 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 704 ms |
| 2020-03-12 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 748 ms |
| 2020-03-11 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 761 ms |
| 2020-03-10 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 739 ms |
| 2020-03-09 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 704 ms |
| 2020-03-08 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 693 ms |
| 2020-03-07 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 722 ms |
| 2020-03-06 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 677 ms |
| 2020-03-05 | 99.000% | 4 mins | 1 | 700 ms |
| 2020-03-04 | 99.000% | 8 mins | 1 | 756 ms |
| 2020-03-03 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 746 ms |
| 2020-03-02 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 699 ms |
| 2020-03-01 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 703 ms |
| 2020-02-29 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 706 ms |
| 2020-02-28 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 721 ms |
| 2020-02-27 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 703 ms |
| 2020-02-26 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 713 ms |
| 2020-02-25 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 725 ms |
| 2020-02-24 | 97.000% | 41 mins | 3 | 703 ms |
| 2020-02-23 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 651 ms |
| 2020-02-22 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 674 ms |
| 2020-02-21 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 685 ms |
| 2020-02-20 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 648 ms |
| 2020-02-19 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 669 ms |
| 2020-02-18 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 676 ms |
| 2020-02-17 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 670 ms |
| 2020-02-16 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 647 ms |
| 2020-02-15 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 647 ms |
| 2020-02-14 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 669 ms |
| 2020-02-13 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 677 ms |
| 2020-02-12 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 664 ms |
| 2020-02-11 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 662 ms |
| 2020-02-10 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 686 ms |
| 2020-02-09 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 652 ms |
| 2020-02-08 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 713 ms |
| 2020-02-07 | 98.000% | 17 mins | 10 | 1457 ms |
| 2020-02-06 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 897 ms |
| 2020-02-05 | 99.000% | 3 mins | 3 | 1015 ms |
| 2020-02-04 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 654 ms |
| 2020-02-03 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 639 ms |
| 2020-02-02 | 99.000% | 8 mins | 6 | 1159 ms |
| 2020-02-01 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 725 ms |
| 2020-01-31 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 697 ms |
| 2020-01-30 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 710 ms |
| 2020-01-29 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 790 ms |
| 2020-01-28 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 875 ms |
| 2020-01-27 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 729 ms |
| 2020-01-26 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 711 ms |
| 2020-01-25 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 704 ms |
| 2020-01-24 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 722 ms |
| 2020-01-23 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 708 ms |
| 2020-01-22 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 710 ms |
| 2020-01-21 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 685 ms |
| 2020-01-20 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 700 ms |
| 2020-01-19 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 684 ms |
| 2020-01-18 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 682 ms |
| 2020-01-17 | 100.000% | 0 mins | 0 | 693 ms |
Page Speed Test
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 stellar in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.89 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-04 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2020-01-03 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2020-01-02 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2020-01-01 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-31 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-30 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-29 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-28 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-27 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-26 | Dulles, VA | 0.2 | 0.0s | 0.2s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-25 | Dulles, VA | 0.8 | 0.0s | 0.8s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-24 | Dulles, VA | 0.8 | 0.0s | 0.8s | 0.0s | F | F | F |
| 2019-12-23 | Dulles, VA | 2.6 | 0.4s | 3.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-22 | Dulles, VA | 2.6 | 0.4s | 3.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-21 | Dulles, VA | 3.5 | 0.6s | 3.6s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-20 | Dulles, VA | 3.5 | 0.6s | 3.6s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-19 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-18 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-17 | Dulles, VA | 3.4 | 0.4s | 3.5s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-16 | Dulles, VA | 3.4 | 0.4s | 3.5s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-15 | Dulles, VA | 6.1 | 0.3s | 6.2s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-14 | Dulles, VA | 6.1 | 0.3s | 6.2s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-13 | Dulles, VA | 5.9 | 0.4s | 6.0s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-12 | Dulles, VA | 5.9 | 0.4s | 6.0s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-11 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-10 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-09 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-08 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-07 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-06 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-05 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-04 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-03 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-02 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-01 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-30 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-29 | Dulles, VA | 2.4 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-28 | Dulles, VA | 2.4 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-27 | Dulles, VA | 2.6 | 0.4s | 2.7s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-26 | Dulles, VA | 2.6 | 0.4s | 2.7s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-25 | Dulles, VA | 2.4 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-24 | Dulles, VA | 2.4 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.8s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-23 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-22 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-21 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-20 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-19 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-18 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-17 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-16 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-15 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-14 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-13 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-12 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-11 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-10 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-09 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-08 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-07 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.5s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-11-06 | Dulles, VA | 2.5 | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | 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 incredibly in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.89 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. 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.
StableHost performs above average in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.53 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 12.29 s. StableHost most recent result on Jan 4 was 0.00 s. Stablehost is one of the few hosts that routinely has page load times under 3 seconds - that's awesome. They have all headers optimized for performance (compression, caching, connections), and their stats back it up.
DreamHost performs incredibly in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.65 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 21.25 s. DreamHost most recent result on Jan 4 was 0.00 s. I expected Dreamhost to have poor performance, but they're not that bad. There are faster hosts out there, but you're not going to be disappointed with them.
HostGator performs incredibly in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.7 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 15.02 s. HostGator most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. Back in the day HostGator used to share a datacenter with SoftLayer - and they were lightning fast. Now that they made everyone transition to their own datacenter (after the EIG buyout), page speed has been worse, although not as bad as some other hosts here.
GoDaddy performs above average in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.8 seconds. It's best result was 0.31 s but it has been as bad as 37.97 s. GoDaddy most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. GoDaddy consistently has very fast page load speeds. I'm attributing this to the fact that they have a stellar Hosting Optimization team, headed by Dave Koopman. He actually reached out to me after seeing this site to not only give me kudos for doing this, but offer additional testing resources (which at the moment I am not using). Regardless, he's pretty passionate about their hosting performance and their stats prove it.
Bluehost performs impressively in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.89 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. 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.
InMotion Hosting performs incredibly in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.93 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 14.12 s. InMotion Hosting most recent result on Jan 4 was 7.00 s. InMotion proves to be stable in its page speed results, usually showing no spikes or erratic performance. While they do optimize connections, they could be making things faster by compressing images and setting the cache headers properly.
MDDHosting performs stellar in the Speed Test, with an average result of 2.93 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 74.96 s. MDDHosting most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. I had heard great things about MDDHosting, and I thought their speed would be on par, but it has proven to have some hiccups. Lately they've been alright, but back in October I was seeing load times of 10+ seconds - wow that's poor! Yet, they are one of the few hosts that has all their server settings optimized.
Namecheap performs above average in the Speed Test, with an average result of 3.04 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 72.71 s. Namecheap most recent result on Jan 4 was 2.00 s. Namecheap proves that they have consistent, low page load times. While I bet it could be improved if they enabled compression and caching headers, their stats are something other hosts strive for.
Site5 performs above average in the Speed Test, with an average result of 3.05 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 46.29 s. Site5 most recent result on Jan 4 was 0.00 s. For the most part, Site5 has decent response times. They could make things load faster if they compressed resources and set caching headers, but at least connections are efficient.
Yahoo Small Business performs alright in the Speed Test, with an average result of 3.84 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 60.96 s. Yahoo Small Business most recent result on Jan 4 was 3.00 s. Yahoo is not someone I'd expect to do well, but they're nothing to laugh at when it comes to speed. Their performance headers could be optimized a bit, but overall they're not going to leave you waiting for your site to load.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-15 | Dulles, VA | 6.1 | 0.3s | 6.2s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-14 | Dulles, VA | 6.1 | 0.3s | 6.2s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-13 | Dulles, VA | 5.9 | 0.4s | 6.0s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
| 2019-12-12 | Dulles, VA | 5.9 | 0.4s | 6.0s | 1.0s | A | A | F |
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. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 84.931 %. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Bluehost had a terrible day back in August that's bringing their average uptime way down. Other than that they're usually pretty reliable.
HostGator performs impressively in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.97 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 97.000 %. HostGator most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Back in 2013 HostGator had several outages that lasted days. While I wasn't recording detailed stats at the time, I can vouch that it was a miserable experience. Many blame the lack of reliability on their new data center, which they made everyone move to after they were bought out by EIG. To be honest, HostGator's downhill performance was the reason I created this site (I was too annoyed by them to let them get away with it).
GoDaddy performs stellar in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.96 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 94.722 %. GoDaddy most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. GoDaddy has shown rocky uptimes when you first start hosting with them, however after a month things become pretty stable. Their tech team reached out to me to explain that they think it only happens when new customers get added to the server and apache needs to restart - and after the server is full it does not need to reload as often. The stats I've collected seem to support this theory, and they claim they're working on a solution.
Bluehost performs mediocre in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.94 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 84.931 %. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Bluehost had a terrible day back in August that's bringing their average uptime way down. Other than that they're usually pretty reliable.
StableHost performs alright in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.93 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 73.000 %. StableHost most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Stablehost really lives up to its name - proving itself with one of the best uptime percentages around, it truly is stable. Not sure I've witnessed an outage more than a minute or two with them. That's unheard of. Kudos, Stablehost.
Namecheap performs okay in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.93 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 92.000 %. Namecheap most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Namecheap has had a few significant outages (more than a few minutes) since I started testing them. It's nothing horrendous, but other hosts have better reliability.
MDDHosting performs miserably in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.88 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 64.583 %. MDDHosting most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. MDD has pretty average uptime reliability. Some hosts are more stable. Some are way worse. MDDHosting falls in the middle.MDDHosting does knock my socks off when it comes to their tech support. The longest I've ever had to wait for a response was 11 minutes. That's incredible. They must have a full staff working round the clock! Nice job, MDD.
Yahoo Small Business performs pretty poorly in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 99.85 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 82.778 %. Yahoo Small Business most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. Yahoo started out strong with their reliability, but tanked in November. Several outages lasting hours at a time - almost every day for two weeks straight. Unless they get their act together fast, I'd be careful with Yahoo.
InMotion Hosting performs miserably in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 98.86 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 0.000 %. InMotion Hosting most recent result on Mar 16 was 100.000 %. When InMotion goes down, they typically are unavailable for only a minute or two. That's alright in my book. They're one of the only hosts that lets you know ahead of time of upcoming maintenance, and how long you can expect your server to be unreachable. I appreciate the communication.
Site5 performs pretty poorly in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 88.81 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 0.000 %. Site5 most recent result on Mar 16 was 0.000 %. Honestly, I expected Site5 to have better reliability. They've had a couple instances where my site was down for multiple hours, and that has ruined their overall average. But day-to-day they still have minor outages that annoy me.
DreamHost performs miserably in the Uptime Test, with an average result of 70.93 percent. It's best result was 100.000 % but it has been as bad as 0.000 %. DreamHost most recent result on Mar 16 was 0.000 %. Dreamhost has had a few significant outages, but I've seen worse. Their ping response time is pretty impressive, faster than most hosts, showing they have a decent network.
Let’s take a look at some of the times that Bluehost had some poor uptime performance
| Date | Uptime | Downtime | Outages | Avg Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-16 | 98.000% | 17 mins | 1 | 651 ms |
| 2020-03-12 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 748 ms |
| 2020-03-05 | 99.000% | 4 mins | 1 | 700 ms |
| 2020-03-04 | 99.000% | 8 mins | 1 | 756 ms |
| 2020-02-24 | 97.000% | 41 mins | 3 | 703 ms |
| 2020-02-22 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 674 ms |
| 2020-02-08 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 713 ms |
| 2020-02-07 | 98.000% | 17 mins | 10 | 1457 ms |
| 2020-02-06 | 99.000% | 1 mins | 1 | 897 ms |
| 2020-02-05 | 99.000% | 3 mins | 3 | 1015 ms |
| 2020-02-02 | 99.000% | 8 mins | 6 | 1159 ms |
Does Bluehost 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 under par in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 34.67 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 168.00 h. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 22 was 168.00 h. 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.
MDDHosting performs impressively in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 0.11 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 0.20 h. MDDHosting most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.10 h.
GoDaddy performs above average in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 0.12 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 0.30 h. GoDaddy most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.10 h. GoDaddy is the only host that doesn't offer email support. At first I thought this horrendous - I waiting on hold on the phone. But from the times I've called, they're usually pretty quick to get to me. I'm okay with their customer service.
Site5 performs incredibly in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 0.28 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 0.80 h. Site5 most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.30 h. Site5 has always responded to my support tickets in under an hour. That's pretty awesome. They're also one of the only hosts that emails you ahead of time about planned outages, and I appreciate being informed.
StableHost performs stellar in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 0.37 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 1.70 h. StableHost most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.20 h. Stablehost's tech team is top notch not just in their speed and uptime knowledge, but in their response time too. You can count on the fact that Stablehost will get back to you within a couple hours - and most likely a few minutes.
InMotion Hosting performs above average in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 0.94 hours. It's best result was 0.20 h but it has been as bad as 2.30 h. InMotion Hosting most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.20 h. Typically InMotion's tech support will get back to you within 3 hours, regardless of the time of day. That's key when you need assistance with your site.
Namecheap performs alright in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 2.2 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 6.00 h. Namecheap most recent result on Mar 22 was 2.20 h. Something I like about Namecheap is their honesty. While most hosts hide the fact that they oversell (put more customers onto one server than it can handle), Namecheap admits they do it. They explain that not only is it the only way for a host to survive (profitably), but usually it's fine because 99% of websites don't get that much traffic (and aren't using all the resources they're allocated). Thanks for telling the truth, Namecheap.
DreamHost performs alright in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 2.79 hours. It's best result was 0.20 h but it has been as bad as 11.00 h. DreamHost most recent result on Mar 22 was 1.30 h. Dreamhost will usually get back to you within an hour, although that's not always the case. Regardless their support is average.
Bluehost performs miserably in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 34.67 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 168.00 h. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 22 was 168.00 h. 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.
Yahoo Small Business performs under par in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 50.89 hours. It's best result was 16.00 h but it has been as bad as 124.00 h. Yahoo Small Business most recent result on Mar 22 was 16.00 h. If you feel like being ignored, send a support ticket to Yahoo's team. Almost 3 days to get a response from one of them. What if my site had been down? I'd recommend a more caring host.
HostGator performs pretty poorly in the Support Response Time Test, with an average result of 53.4 hours. It's best result was 0.30 h but it has been as bad as 168.00 h. HostGator most recent result on Mar 22 was 0.30 h. HostGator's tech support had proven to be pretty slow - you can count on them taking about a day to respond to you. Things used to be faster before they were bought out by EIG.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-03-22 | Mar 10, 4:18pm | Over 7 days | 168.0 hours |
| 2014-11-28 | Nov 28, 4:31pm | Dec 1, 1:02pm | 68.4 hours |
| 2014-10-26 | Oct 26, 10:53am | Oct 28, 12:41pm | 49.0 hours |
| 2014-08-09 | 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
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 Time Test, with an average result of 34.67 hours. It's best result was 0.10 h but it has been as bad as 168.00 h. Bluehost most recent result on Mar 22 was 168.00 h. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-03-22 | Mar 10, 4:18pm | Over 7 days | 168.0 hours |
| 2015-02-24 | Feb 24, 3:25am | Feb 24, 3:38am | 0.2 hours |
| 2015-01-27 | Jan 27, 5:49am | Jan 27, 11:42am | 5.9 hours |
| 2014-12-20 | Dec 20, 2:48pm | Dec 20, 2:57pm | 0.2 hours |
| 2014-11-28 | Nov 28, 4:31pm | Dec 1, 1:02pm | 68.4 hours |
| 2014-10-26 | Oct 26, 10:53am | Oct 28, 12:41pm | 49.0 hours |
| 2014-09-06 | Sept 6, 6:44pm | Sept 6, 6:46pm | 0.1 hours |
| 2014-08-09 | Aug 9, 2:41pm | Aug 10, 8:20am | 17.7 hours |
| 2014-07-12 | 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:
| Host | Average | Best | Worst | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HostGator | 99.970 % | 100.000 % | 97.000 % | Test Results | Signup Now |
| GoDaddy | 99.960 % | 100.000 % | 94.720 % | Test Results | Signup Now |
| Bluehost | 99.940 % | 100.000 % | 84.930 % | Test Results | Signup Now |
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 vs Other Hosts
- Bluehost vs DreamHost: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs GoDaddy: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs HostGator: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs InMotion Hosting: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs MDDHosting: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs Namecheap: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs Site5: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs StableHost: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?
- Bluehost vs Yahoo Small Business: Which Host Is Best For You & Your Site?