Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site?

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.

HostAverageBestWorst
HostGator: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Uptime & Hosting Speed?2.80 s2.00 s15.02 sTest Results
StableHost2.89 s0.00 s12.29 sTest Results
GoDaddy2.91 s0.31 s37.97 sTest Results
Bluehost3.02 s0.00 s9.17 sTest Results
DreamHost: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Hosting Speed & Uptime?3.04 s0.00 s21.25 sTest Results
MDDHosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime?3.06 s2.00 s74.96 sTest Results
InMotion Hosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime?3.13 s0.00 s14.12 sTest Results
Namecheap: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime?3.14 s2.00 s72.71 sTest Results
Site5: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime?3.26 s0.25 s46.29 sTest Results
Yahoo Small Business: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime?4.00 s2.00 s60.96 sTest Results

HostGator: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Uptime & Hosting Speed? performs impressively in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 2.8 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 15.02 s. HostGator: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Uptime & Hosting Speed? most recent result on Nov 20 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.

StableHost performs impressively in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 2.89 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 12.29 s. StableHost most recent result on Nov 20 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.

GoDaddy performs above average in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 2.91 seconds. It's best result was 0.31 s but it has been as bad as 37.97 s. GoDaddy most recent result on Nov 20 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 incredibly in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.02 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 9.17 s. Bluehost most recent result on Nov 20 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.

DreamHost: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs above average in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.04 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 21.25 s. DreamHost: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 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.

MDDHosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs great in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.06 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 74.96 s. MDDHosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 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.

InMotion Hosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs great in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.13 seconds. It's best result was 0.00 s but it has been as bad as 14.12 s. InMotion Hosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 was 1.00 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.

Namecheap: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs impressively in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.14 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 72.71 s. Namecheap: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 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: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs alright in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 3.26 seconds. It's best result was 0.25 s but it has been as bad as 46.29 s. Site5: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 was 2.00 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: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? performs alright in the Web Hosting Speeds: Which Hosting Brands Are Best & Worst For Your Site? Test, with an average result of 4 seconds. It's best result was 2.00 s but it has been as bad as 60.96 s. Yahoo Small Business: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? most recent result on Nov 20 was 2.00 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.

Recent Raw Results from Nov 20

Date Location Load time TTFB Fully loaded Speed index Keep-alive Score Compress Score Caching Score
Bluehost Dulles, VA 2.3s 0.3s 2.4s 0.7s A A F
InMotion Hosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 1.9s 0.0s 1.9s 0.0s F F F
HostGator: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Uptime & Hosting Speed? Dulles, VA 2.5s 0.4s 2.5s 0.9s A A F
GoDaddy Dulles, VA 2.4s 0.3s 2.8s 0.7s A A F
Namecheap: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 2.5s 0.3s 2.6s 0.8s A A F
StableHost Dulles, VA 0.7s 0.5s 1.1s 0.8s A A A
Yahoo Small Business: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 2.8s 0.3s 3.1s 1.2s A F C
DreamHost: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Their Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 0.1s 0.0s 0.1s 0.0s F F F
Site5: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 2.3s 0.3s 2.4s 0.7s A A F
MDDHosting: How Good (Or Bad!) Is Hosting Speed & Uptime? Dulles, VA 2.3s 0.2s 2.4s 0.7s A A A