When it comes to web hosting performance, I've had the chance to put Hostinger and Bluehost through the paces, and here's what I found.
I know I keep mentioning this, time and time again, but low speed and performance is one of my pet hates when it comes to hosting. I truly believe that this is among the top criteria that you should judge your decision on, and it is commonly overlooked by new starters.
Performance Comparison
To cut to the chase In terms of performance, Hostinger comes out ahead. It proves to be faster, handle traffic better, and have slightly higher uptime compared to Bluehost. Hostinger's results were among the best of all the products reviewed, while Bluehost was decent but not exceptional as the alternative.
Uptime and Response Time
I closely monitored the uptime and response time of both Hostinger and Bluehost for about to gauge their reliability. Hostinger impressed me with 99.9% uptime and zero outages during a period of three months. It's a great result, but keep in mind that 100% uptime is nearly impossible in the long run. Response time for Hostinger was fairly consistent, averaging around 514ms.
Bluehost, on the other hand, experienced five crashes and a total downtime of 10.4 minutes during the same time frame. While this is still a reliable performance, it's a more realistic representation of shared hosting. Bluehost had a lower average response time at 350ms, but it had some fluctuations before stabilizing.
In summary, both providers showed reliability, and that's a significant factor in web hosting.
Website Speed
When it comes to speed, I consider three two metrics:
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP): This indicates how quickly the most substantial part of a website loads. Up to 2.5 seconds is considered good. Hostinger aced this with an LCP of 849ms.
Fully Loaded Time: This tells us when the website is completely ready to be used. For Hostinger, it was 936ms, only slightly delayed from the LCP.
The reason for Hostinger's superior speed is its strong focus on performance. They use LiteSpeed webserver with pre-configured caching and offer the latest PHP versions. Additionally, they have data centers across the world, allowing you to choose a location that's closest to your audience.
Bluehost, on the other hand, relies on more traditional technology with basic caching and slower PHP updates. They also have servers only in the USA, which may not be optimal if your audience is located elsewhere.
In the end, both providers offer good speed, but Hostinger has a clear edge. If speed is a top priority, especially for WordPress sites, Hostinger offers the LiteSpeed WordPress module and Cloudflare CDN to boost speed and security. Hostinger has data centers worldwide, while Bluehost's servers are all in the USA.
To sum it up, if you need a reliable and fast host, Hostinger is the way to go. However, if you prefer sticking with a hosting provider based in the USA, Bluehost is a solid choice. It ultimately depends on your specific needs and preferences.