Namecheap Review and Stats
Namecheap started as a domain registrar in 2001, but expanded into hosting in 2008. Their data centers are located in Phoenix, Arizona and Atlanta, Georgia.
I have purchased a hosting plan on Namecheap 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 | Professional |
| Cost | $7.48/month |
| Disk Space | 100GB |
| Bandwidth | Unlimited |
| Uptime Guarantee | 99.9% |
| Money-Back Guarantee | 14 days |
| Notes | Site was ready within minutes after I purchased. |
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!)
Namecheap Uptime Test Results
Namecheap performs okay in the Uptime test, with an average result of 99.95 percent. Its best run was 100.00 %, but has been as bad as 92.92 %. Namecheap's most recent result on Sep 21 was 100.00 percent. 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.
Let's see if Namecheap is consistent in its uptime stats:
Recent Raw Results for Namecheap
| Date | Uptime | Downtime | Outages | Avg Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 337 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 339 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 364 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 387 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 391 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 383 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 385 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 380 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 369 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 384 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 390 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 415 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 416 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 410 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 420 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 426 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 412 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 426 ms | |
| 99.306 % | 10 mins | 9 | 847 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 416 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 425 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 446 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 544 ms | |
| 99.792 % | 3 mins | 2 | 611 ms | |
| 99.514 % | 7 mins | 7 | 581 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 535 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 496 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 448 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 393 ms | |
| 99.931 % | 1 mins | 1 | 418 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 413 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 326 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 312 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 327 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 303 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 294 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 311 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 376 ms | |
| 99.652 % | 5 mins | 1 | 354 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 330 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 347 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 364 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 408 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 389 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 410 ms | |
| 99.931 % | 1 mins | 1 | 419 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 407 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 414 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 405 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 416 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 392 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 375 ms | |
| 97.986 % | 29 mins | 5 | 390 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 379 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 379 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 370 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 405 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 409 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 438 ms | |
| 100.000 % | 0 mins | 0 | 459 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.
Namecheap Page Speed Test Results
Namecheap performs impressively in the Page Speed test, with an average result of 3.15 seconds. Its best run was 2.09 s, but has been as bad as 72.71 s. Namecheap's most recent result on Mar 23 was 2.40 seconds. 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.
Let's see if Namecheap is consistent in its page speed stats:
Recent Raw Results for Namecheap
| Date | Location | Load time | TTFB | Fully loaded | Speed index | Keep-alive Score | Compress Score | Caching Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.7s | 0.3s | 2.9s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.3s | 2.7s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.8s | 0.4s | 3.0s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.4s | 2.7s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.3s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.7s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 3.0s | 0.3s | 2.8s | 1.1s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.6s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.6s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.7s | 0.3s | 2.6s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.5s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.9s | 0.3s | 2.8s | 1.1s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.4s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.6s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.3s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.3s | 2.5s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.4s | 0.4s | 2.6s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.3s | 0.8s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.8s | 0.3s | 3.0s | 1.0s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.2s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.1s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.3s | 0.3s | 2.4s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.0s | 0.2s | 2.0s | 0.5s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.6s | 0.3s | 2.7s | 0.9s | A | A | F | ||
| 2.1s | 0.2s | 2.2s | 0.5s | A | A | F |
Does Namecheap Suck?
Some people may think Namecheap sucks. Here are some real benchmarks to show you Namecheap's speed, reliability, and support - so you can see if they really do suck.
Is Namecheap 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.
Namecheap performs above average in the Page Speed test, with an average result of 3.15 seconds. Its best run was 2.09 s, but has been as bad as 72.71 s. Namecheap's most recent result on Mar 23 was 2.40 seconds. 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.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Namecheap 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 Namecheap unreliable?
This test is performed by measuring the % uptime of a host. Higher is better. Learn more about the Uptime Test.
Namecheap performs alright in the Uptime test, with an average result of 99.95 percent. Its best run was 100.00 %, but has been as bad as 92.92 %. Namecheap's most recent result on Sep 21 was 100.00 percent. 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.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Namecheap had some poor uptime performance:
| Date | Uptime | Downtime | Outages | Avg Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99.306 % | 10 mins | 9 | 847 ms | |
| 99.792 % | 3 mins | 2 | 611 ms | |
| 99.514 % | 7 mins | 7 | 581 ms | |
| 99.652 % | 5 mins | 1 | 354 ms | |
| 97.986 % | 29 mins | 5 | 390 ms |
Does Namecheap'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.
Namecheap performs mediocre in the Support Response test, with an average result of 2.2 hours. Its best run was 0.1 h, but has been as bad as 6.0 h. Namecheap's most recent result on Mar 2016 was 2.2 hours. 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.
Let's take a look at some of the times that Namecheap had some poor support response performance:
| Date | Support Ticket Submitted | Support Ticket Resolved | Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| None found! | |||
Still think Namecheap sucks?
I've presented you with lots of data that will show you whether or not Namecheap sucks. So, what do you think? Are they reliable, fast, and helpful? If not, consider these Namecheap 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!
Namecheap Support Response Test Results
Namecheap performs mediocre in the Support Response test, with an average result of 2.2 hours. Its best run was 0.1 h, but has been as bad as 6.0 h. Namecheap's most recent result on Mar 2016 was 2.2 hours. 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.
Let's see if Namecheap is consistent in its support response stats:
Recent Raw Results for Namecheap
| Date | Support Ticket Submitted | Support Ticket Resolved | Response Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 4:21pm | Mar 10, 6:30pm | 2.2 hours | |
| Feb 24, 3:34am | Feb 24, 6:05am | 2.5 hours | |
| Jan 27, 5:57am | Jan 27, 8:10am | 2.2 hours | |
| Dec 20, 2:55pm | Dec 20, 3:33pm | 0.6 hours | |
| Nov 28, 4:38pm | Nov 28, 7:23pm | 2.8 hours | |
| Oct 26, 10:57am | Oct 26, 4:56pm | 6.0 hours | |
| Sept 6, 6:49pm | Sept 6, 9:06pm | 2.3 hours | |
| Aug 9, 3:00pm | Aug 9, 3:03pm | 0.1 hours | |
| July 13, 2:15pm | July 13, 3:22pm | 1.1 hours |
Namecheap Alternatives: Better speed, reliability, and support
Are you having problems with Namecheap? 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 Namecheap competitor that has better uptime, faster load times, and speedier support.
Hosts faster than Namecheap
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 Namecheap is having page speed problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Hosts more reliable than Namecheap
This test is performed by measuring the % uptime of a host. Higher is better. Learn more about the Uptime Test.
If Namecheap is having uptime problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Hosts more helpful than Namecheap
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 Namecheap is having support response problems, consider these alternative hosts that score better:
Namecheap Versus Other Hosts
If you're trying to decide between Namecheap 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