Best WordPress Hosting Round 3

roastahost-wordpress-hosting-performance comparison-round-3


Welcome to Round 3 of our WordPress hosting performance comparison! For more information on how my testing works and what I am trying to accomplish please see the original comparison here: Best Wordpress Hosting Round 1

The short of it is I use Siege to simulate a large amount of users who are hitting the test site over 15 random URL’s (yes I changed from the original 11) with a random delay of 1-3 seconds per visit per user. Each test runs for 10 minutes and is closely monitored, If I see the site is really struggling or becomes unavailable I stop the test. The goal is to show what each host offers in terms of performance and just how large of a difference caching makes.


Let’s Get Started with our Best WordPress Hosting Round 3!



TD Web Services Environment, Resources, And Price

Getting information about their environment / stack was a little difficult. I had already checked the headers to get an idea what was going on and saw that Nginx was listed as webserver, even though in the Control Panel Apache + FCGI was selected. So figured they had Nginx running as a reverse proxy in front of Apache, which support eventually confirmed. Apparently Memcached is also part of their environment, Plesk is the actual control panel.


Plan Name: WP Basic

Plan Cost: $15/mo USD

Panel: Plesk

Ram: NA



Webserver: Apache + Nginx

Server Side Caching: Memcached

Mysql: Yes

PHP Memory: 128MB

PHP 7: Yes


TD Web Services First Run (No WordPress Cache)

I started off at 50 Concurrent users which it handled easily. At 100 concurrent users we start to see availability drop below 100 and some failed transactions. At 95 concurrent users it was stable and fast. At 350 it has a meltdown and I needed to stop the test.

siege -c95 -d3 -t10M -i -f /usr/local/etc/tdws_urls.txt

Lifting the server siege...
Transactions: 27933 hits
Availability: 99.97 %
Elapsed time: 599.94 secs
Data transferred: 921.78 MB
Response time: 0.65 secs
Transaction rate: 46.56 trans/sec
Throughput: 1.54 MB/sec
Concurrency: 30.11
Successful transactions: 27933
Failed transactions: 7
Longest transaction: 21.46
Shortest transaction: 0.23


Using a WordPress cache on this service is not going to make any difference as your content is cached already. This is decent performance and better than some of the other WordPress hosting providers I have tested. Plesk was a nice change and it has changed quite a bit since I last used it. At the price of $15/mo a better choice would be picking from our Top 5 WordPress Hosts





WP engine Environment, Resources, And Price

I have been wanting to see what WP engine can do for awhile now, and finally got the chance. WP engine is the big boy in the managed WordPress hosting niche and a premium service, so I am expecting it to perform. I was not wrong it performs extremely well, well enough to take over the #2 spot in our top 5 WordPress hosts. Had a chat with a sales rep and it was refreshing, a sales rep that actually knows the service from the technical side, great!


Plan Name: Personal

Plan Cost: $29/mo USD

Panel: Custom

Ram: NA



Webserver: Apache + Nginx

Server Side Caching: Varnish + Memcached

Mysql: Yes

PHP Memory: 512MB

PHP 7: No (PHP 5.3 [what no EOL stuff please!] or PHP 5.5 depending on server you land on)

WP engine PHP Info


WP engine Stress Testing

There is no point in testing with a WordPress cache as this is already well handled by their environment. I knew WP engine could take a hit so i started at 300 concurrent users and it took it like a champ, and continued to do so up until 1150 concurrent users. At that point we started to see some failed transactions and availability dropped below 100%, response time also started suffering.


1150 concurrent users

Lifting the server siege...
Transactions: 153520 hits
Availability: 99.99 %
Elapsed time: 599.55 secs
Data transferred: 5270.36 MB
Response time: 2.93 secs
Transaction rate: 256.06 trans/sec
Throughput: 8.79 MB/sec
Concurrency: 750.48
Successful transactions: 153520
Failed transactions: 20
Longest transaction: 12.70
Shortest transaction: 0.08


I would be pretty confident in WP engine handling 800 concurrent users and maintaining stability and most of it’s speed. Here is a test at 800 Concurrent, past that point it starts to show some instability.


Lifting the server siege...
Transactions: 163509 hits
Availability: 100.00 %
Elapsed time: 600.29 secs
Data transferred: 5608.72 MB
Response time: 1.39 secs
Transaction rate: 272.38 trans/sec
Throughput: 9.34 MB/sec
Concurrency: 378.25
Successful transactions: 163509
Failed transactions: 5
Longest transaction: 8.37
Shortest transaction: 0.08

Overall an awesome service, it is expensive but it is one of those things you get what you pay for. I would definitely recommend WP engine to a friend.



FastComet I never hear of until recently. I started to see quite a few posts on forums about it but those posts didn’t sit quite right with me, and so I decided to check them out and see how they did. < Caution spoiler > FastComet is not all that fast. I generally start stress tests off at 50 concurrent users with no caching as I expect this to be handles for at the very least the first few minutes of the test. On FastComet despite the apparently generous resource allotments on RAM and CPU I instantly saw 508 errors which are CloudLinux errors saying you have passed your resource limits. Well let’s get down to the nitty gritty.


Fast Comet Environment, Resources, And Price

Plan Name: E-Commerce

Plan Cost: $6.95/mo USD

Panel: cPanel

Ram: 2048MB

CPU: 1 Core

IO: 2024KB/s

Webserver: Apache + Nginx

Server Side Caching: Memcached

Mysql: Yes

PHP Memory: 256MB

PHP 7: Yes


Fast Comet Stress Test (No WordPress Caching)

Down to 25 Concurrent because 50 triggered instant 508 error rendering the site unavailable and it failed pretty badly even at 25 Concurrent users. Here are the results:

siege -c25 -d3 -t10M -i -f /usr/local/etc/fcomet_urls.txt

Lifting the server siege...
Transactions: 4534 hits
Availability: 87.19 %
Elapsed time: 599.79 secs
Data transferred: 157.78 MB
Response time: 1.56 secs
Transaction rate: 7.56 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.26 MB/sec
Concurrency: 11.77
Successful transactions: 4534
Failed transactions: 666
Longest transaction: 5.46
Shortest transaction: 0.06


These poor results are from 2 different factors from what I can see:

  1. Entry processes is set to 15 which must be maddening for their customers especially on an E-Commerce plan, this is much to low in my opinion. This is the limit that is causing most of the 508 CloudLinux errors.
  2.  CPU is almost maxed at 25 Concurrent users before the 15 EP kicks in. This suggests to me a badly configured or oversold server CPU wise.



This hosting needs some help, let’s see how it does with WP Super Cache active.


Fast Comet Stress Test (WordPress Caching)

I enabled WP Super cache and used 50 concurrent users which I would expect with caching it would handle, but I was wrong. Here are the results:


siege -c50 -d3 -t10M -i -f /usr/local/etc/fcomet_urls.txt

Lifting the server siege...
Transactions: 17845 hits
Availability: 99.91 %
Elapsed time: 599.15 secs
Data transferred: 607.51 MB
Response time: 0.16 secs
Transaction rate: 29.78 trans/sec
Throughput: 1.01 MB/sec
Concurrency: 4.85
Successful transactions: 17845
Failed transactions: 16
Longest transaction: 3.57
Shortest transaction: 0.10


From what I can tell this host suffers from bad server configuration and possibly some overselling but that is just an opinion (overselling). This is not a host I would recommend.  Hope you enjoyed this round of our WordPress Hosting Performance testing, and stay tuned for more!










2 thoughts on “Best WordPress Hosting Round 3”

  1. I am impressed with fastcomet features but some says good some say bad made me confuse & all over internet there are biased reviews. I am looking to get the deal under 70$/year. Please suggest some powerful but cost effective hosting service please.

    1. For that price the only one I can recommend would be Kickassd who also currently is #1 for performance on my performance reviews.

Leave a Reply