Best WordPress Hosting Services 2018

best wordpress hosting 2018

Top 10 Best WordPress Hosting Services 2018

When it comes to your online business, from your home on the net, you should not settle for anything. You should worry about knowing which is the best WordPress hosting for your website.

But for that you have us. We spend hours and hours working with WordPress and we have to deal with all kinds of servers and companies. But let’s make it clear once and for all which company is the one that will provide the best performance to your website.

What is it that makes a hosting service good?

From our point of view there are 3 points to analyze that differentiate the hostings from the bunch with the good hostings:
  1. Load speed (performance). If the server responds fast and your web loads fast, your users will appreciate it, and much.
  2. Customer service (support). If you encounter a problem that you can not solve, having an agile, friendly and effective technical support service is vital.
  3. Offer (price). Here it is not about going to the cheapest but to the one that offers the best value for money.
In this article, we have only compared the loading speed between the companies we have selected. And we have only focused on the shared server services for WordPress. We want this list to be kept alive and we will be adding more companies and more comparisons to it. We want to become the article about consulting when someone needs to hire a WordPress hosting and do not know which company to choose. Therefore, the results of this article correspond to the current offer for 2018, but we will renew it every few months.


Below is a list of the companies analyzed so far (without a particular order):

Bluehost $2.75/mo30 days419 ms 99.99%"Outstanding"
Get Hosting REVIEW
iPage$1.99/month30 days868 ms99.98"Excellent"
Get Hosting REVIEW
HostGator$2.99/month45 days463 ms 99.96%"Fantastic"
Get Hosting REVIEW
$3.95/mo30 days567 ms99.92%"Wonderful"
Get Hosting REVIEW
$3.9530 days722 ms 99.98%"Fantastic"
Get Hosting REVIEW
$4.88/mo90 days752 ms 99.91%"Great"
Get Hosting REVIEW
$7.95/mo97 days849 ms 99.90%"Great"
Get Hosting
FastComet $2.95/mo45days413ms99.90%"Great"
Get Hosting
$2.85/mo 60 Days470 ms99.99%"Outstanding"
Get Hosting REVIEW
4.95$/mo30800 ms 99.90%"Wonderful"
Get Hosting

What we want to do is analyze the companies that offer to host for WordPress in the national panorama and obtain technical results about their performance and ONLY about their performance.

ATTENTION: From my point of view, that your servers are the fastest does not mean that you are the best hosting company on the market but it really helps to make it that way.

What is the best hosting company for WordPress?

If you do not want to read the whole article with our comparison and the details of the different hostings, here is the list of the 3 best ones:


  1. Web company
  2. Siteground
  3. Raiola Networks
Fortunately, most of the shared servers that we analyzed have a good performance. The top-3 previous ones were those that better analytical results threw after the test of load to which we submitted to them. 
Therefore, these 3 are what we normally advise our customers or anyone who asks us for a reliable hosting for their WordPress. If you want to know why we have reached this conclusion, I encourage you to continue reading and see the individual results of each company and how we did the tests.


Performance of WordPress servers

It all started one day when we had a problem with an unreliable server that one of our clients was using. Fortunately, it is not even in the list of this article. They are this kind of low-cost hosting companies, very very cheap that at first, they leave you lying.

The client in question had always argued that the hostings we proposed were very expensive and that he paid half or less. Logically, we have an argument forged by experience and the hundreds of cases of problems that we have solved with servers. But it seems that at the moment it was going well … Until it was not like that. Needless to say, he is now paying attention to us.

As this doubt was very recurring among our own customers, we decided to find out which servers would be the best. In this way, we would be able to support our consultation with a study and technical data.

Then I searched the net to see if someone had done something similar. And, of course, it was not an original idea. There were already articles in English that analyzed that. But what I did not find is articles in Spanish and for Spanish companies. So, we had to do it yes or yes.

Of all the English-speaking comparisons that I found, the one I liked the most was WPSiteCare. They did a test like the one I wanted to do and they also gave us information to save time and difficulties they had.

Well, taking advantage of Black Friday and the great offers that hosting companies offered, I decided to make the first list of companies and hire a shared server in each of them. The idea was to hire the cheapest and simplest option in each of the companies and compare them.

IMPORTANT NOTE: None of the companies knew that we were doing the test and all the hosting plans were contracted by us to ensure the impartiality of the results.

For load tests (send simultaneous users to a website), we always like to use Load Impact. It is simple and has a free version that allows you to perform 5 tests per month. Basically, what Load Impact does is simulate that you send a number of users to a web at a time in a period of time. In this case, we did the test with 50 recurring users and for 5 minutes. Why 50? Because it can be a good limit to pass to a VPS.

Important things when choosing a Web Hosting

Some additional details that we had in mind to perform the experiment:

  • All the websites are identical. In fact, we took a real web and replicated it on all the servers. The web was updated to WordPress 4.6 with the Twenty Sixteen theme and the same number of pages and posts.
  • All the tests launched from LoadImpact were launched from the server they have in Dublin. It is the closest they have to Spain. This would benefit companies with Spanish servers with respect to Americans. The ideal would have been to have the test server in Spain but we did not find any company that did it. Still, I think the data is very reliable in this regard and the variation would have been minimal.
  • All the websites were mounted in a subdomain. We wanted to avoid any DNS problem, latency or there might be variations in resolving the domain if we used different domains or different registrars. In 2 companies it was not possible to do so because of server limitations and we did it with a different domain.
  • For the test, we disable all the plugins and cache systems of the WordPress backend. If the server incorporates some kind of cache enhancement by default, we leave it that way.
  • Each test on each server was performed 3 times and we were left with the best of them.

If you have any questions or want us to provide more details of a specific point, I encourage you to leave a comment and continue to improve the comparison together.

What is the best hosting for WordPress?

Let’s go to it, yes. After all the previous roll, which I think was necessary, we will see one by one all the hosting services analyzed and how they responded to the test.

To understand the graphs of each one you just have to bear in mind that the data represented are of two types:

  • Number of users at each moment (blue line that always increases until you reach 50)
  • The response time of the web (the green line that ideally should be as stable as possible and as low as possible).

Web company

Updated: After the first analysis with very strange results of the Webempresa servers, we received the following communication from you:

ACCEPTABLE NOTE OF WEBEMPRESA: “We have commented with our technical team the results you have obtained and they indicate that the IP addresses of Load Impact have been blocked by too many concurrent connections from the same IP.We do not allow stress tests on the production servers, precisely to maintain the stability of the servers. When we detect non-human behavior, with too many concurrent connections etc, the system blocks to guarantee that the normal navigation and of robots like Google, is the correct one.

To make a load impact, we always ask customers to request it so we can enable security rules etc. You could also do tests without and with our server-level cache system enabled, Magic Cache. “

We have done the tests of your server again without the filter they have activated and the data is actually better and more realistic. Our comments:

They get a very good minimum time of 458.82ms. Its graph is maintained over time very stable and contained at all times. So they balance well a load of recurring users and the web does not slow down. The maximum response time also remains very contained with 1.96s. We have not activated Magic Caché in the tests since it is a service that is not available by default for the lowest plan they have, which is the one that we hire and allows us to compare the other analyzed companies in equal conditions. But, we have tried the Caché service in other projects of ours and the truth is that the web flies.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of Webempresa server: Paris

Maximum response time: 1.96s

Minimum response time: 458.82ms


Click to see the full analysis of Webempresa in Load Impact


Siteground is one of the best WordPress hosting companies without hesitation. Impressive also the 362.9 ms of minimum response. And the price of 4.78 € / month of your Startup Plan is a great offer with very good value for money. Although his server was in Sofia (Bulgaria), he endured the test with a note. Very stable throughout the test and with peaks below the second always.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Siteground server location: Sofia (Bulgaria)

Maximum response time:  1.88s

Minimum response time:  362.9ms


Click to see the full Siteground analysis in Load Impact

Raiola Networks

We had already tried Raiola’s servers with some customer and the truth is that they had always given us a good impression but now that we have tested them, it seems that everything good is confirmed. He got an impressive 311.21ms of minimum response time. They have servers in France and Spain. We had bad luck and we had Paris but still, the response was very good. The fact that it has little variation in time makes the response graph look bad but keep in mind that variations occur in small millisecond spaces. Although the LoadImpact tool gives us a maximum response time in the whole graph, no point exceeds the second.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Raiola Networks server location: Paris

Maximum response time:  2.02s

Minimum response time: 311.21ms


Click to see the full analysis of Raiola Networks in Load Impact

Host Europe

Good results also obtained in the tests with Host Europe. Very stable server response throughout the test without appreciable peaks from start to finish. It keeps a maximum response of 778.37ms which indicates a good scaling of the server when it starts receiving multiple users. However, the minimum response time is somewhat higher than that of our top-3. However, it is a very good option also for websites that do not seek to be “the fastest web in the West” since many do not need it. Reliable, stable and good price. A good option for 

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Host Europe server location: Höst, Germany

Response time: 778,37ms

Minimum response time: 509.82ms


Click here to see Host Europe’s full analysis on Load Impact


Taking into account that the location of the image servers is in the USA, the great response also to the test of this company. A very option to consider. The average response always stays below 1 second and although the minimum response time is not bright (probably because of the location of your servers), it is quite acceptable. The price is also quite contained as they are 3.75 a $ / month.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

IPage server location: Burlington (Massachusetts)

Response time:  1.98s

Minimum response time:  699,67ms


Click to see iPage’s full analysis in Load Impact

A2 Hosting

The other major competitor with servers in the US. Surprise your minimum response time with a brand new 457.12ms although the maximum peak is already escaping over 2 seconds. In the graph, we see that it starts with a high response time but then it improves. It does not stay as stable as the previous two but it also works in a relatively narrow and low band. The price is 3.99 $ / month which is also a very good offer.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of A2 Hosting server: Wichita (Kansas)

Maximum response time:  2.29s

Minimum response time:  457.12ms


Click here to see the full analysis of A2 Hosting in Load Impact


Another Spanish solution with 100% servers in Spain. We have used it many times and we know the great features of Cdmon. In the test, a curious thing happens. It remains VERY stable and low until it exceeds 40 users. Surely, the limit for Cdmon is 40 users. It is a pity because for the conditions of this test the server did not adhere correctly but without a doubt, it is the best option in terms of stable response. It could have been the best by far if the test had been done for 40 recurring users. If your project is small or medium you will not need a quick response for 50 recurring users so I advise this hosting too. The price is € 7.56 / month which makes it average for Spain.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of the Cdmon server: Madrid (Spain)

Response time:  521,71ms

Minimum response time:  1.05m


Click to see the full Cdmon analysis in Load Impact


We analyze Hostinger as a very cheap option every month and the truth is that it gives much better performance than the companies analyzed so far, cataloged as “low-cost”. With a minimum response time much better to Hostgator or Bluehost and with a very stable performance throughout the entire test. An option that does not reach the height of our top-3 but is very to take into account if you want to have a cheap hosting but that performs well.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of the Hostinger server: Unknown

Response time: 1,73s

Minimum response time: 169.99ms


Click here to see the full analysis of Hostinger in Load Impact


A solution with servers also in the US but quite used in Spain. It is true that the response at all times remains stable. But almost always the response time is around 2 seconds. Nowadays this speed is not acceptable for a server if you want to have a fast web. Hold the load well but need to improve response times in general.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Hostgator server location: Houston (Texas)

Maximum response time: 3.86s

Minimum response time:  1,67s


Click to see the full analysis of Hostgator in Load Impact


The Bluehost graph shows a high peak at the beginning. I suppose that signal indicates to the servers that there are many users coming in and they begin to balance the load. After that, the graph remains stable although above 2 seconds. And then it shoots again in the last phases of the test when there are more recurring users. However, it is the one with the cheapest price. 2.65 $ / month is enough to think about if it is a secondary or unimportant site.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of the Bluehost server: New York (NY)

Response time:  36,05s

Minimum response time:  2.18s


Click to see the full Bluehost analysis in Load Impact


It is one of the most consistent and stable graphics so in that aspect they do a good job. However, the response time is always around 2 seconds. Probably not the best option for Spain but it seems that they do a good load balancing on their servers. The price, however, is not very attractive since they are the most expensive of all: 10.95 $ / month.

Location of the test server: Dublin, Ireland

Location of the Dreamhost server: Brea (California)

Maximum response time: 4.15s

Minimum response time: 958.7ms


Click to see the full analysis of Dreamhost in Load Impact



 When choosing a hosting you should also bear in mind that a hosting company provides web hosting with many other added services. You can buy domains, SSL certificates, dedicated IP … The prices of these extra hosting services are different from one company to another.

One of the reasons why I have chosen these companies is because they offer the best hosting services so it is easy to get everything you need now or in the future with a single account, all centralized in a panel.

When buying domains many companies offer free domain during the first year, the problem comes next year because these companies will charge you the domain more expensive than others specialized in domains like Namecheap, you can move your domain name to another company, it is not necessary that it be linked to the hosting company.


If you live in Spain, a server in Europe is going to work very well, many companies have data centers in the Netherlands, this is due to the strategic position of this country, the submarine cables that go to America, almost all leave from there.

If you host your website on a server in Amsterdam for example, your website will be faster in America than if you hosted it in Spain (a fact to take into account if your clientele is international).


Map of fiber optic cables

If you live in America, the best option for you is a server in the US. , for the same reason, it is close to your geographical area and at the same time, your page will be faster in Europe.

There are almost no cables from Europe or Spain directly, all the cables have to pass through the US.

If you want your website to be truly global you must use a CDN (Content Delivery Network), Cloudflare, MaxCDN and KeyCDN are good options for that. You can see all this much more detailed in this article.

Do not search for the best hosting in Spain, search for the best hosting, companies such as SiteGround or A2Hosting are great options even if they do not have servers in Spain (they have them in Amsterdam).


The best hosting, web hosting, web hosting … everything the same as the Spanish language … 

These are the best web hosting services for 2018, I wanted to offer a variety of shared hosting, cheap and acceptable for those who are starting or do not want to spend a lot of money on their accommodation and others a little more expensive but offering greater performance for those who want to get a better service. These are my recommendations to buy a hosting.

These companies will allow you to grow because, in addition to shared hosting offer other more professional services with more resources, you can move from one plan to another very easily.

By the way, what do you think is the best hosting?

If you need help choosing, do not hesitate to contact me or write comments. Oh! and if you like it, share.


Next Article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.