Lightbulb Does Your 'WordPress Host' Use WordPress for Their

Lightbulb Does Your 'WordPress Host' Use WordPress for Their Own Site? - Is Their Site Slow?
Isn't it really interesting how many 'WordPress Hosts' do not themselves even use WordPress for their own sites, promise 2-20X faster performance for your WP site, yet their static HTML site performance is slow.... How can they promise up to 20X faster speeds for your WordPress site if they can't even get their own corporate website to perform on plain HTML?

++++++++++++++
list of top cheapest host http://Listfreetop.pw

Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw/surf

free link exchange sites list http://Listfreetop.pw/links
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
+++++++++++++++

I've tested some web hosting company sites using: https://performance.sucuri.net/

I won't post any results here, but you should, just for giggles or your own education, test your current host's company website and that of other hosts just to see the results.

Some of the results I have seen would surprise you, global page loads averaging 1.7 seconds... etc... NOT 20X faster performance as advertised by some, at least not in my opinion... I would NEVER accept that level of performance... anything over 0.5 seconds for loads should be cause for concern in today's high speed environment for SEO, client usability, etc.

So what makes these hosting company sites run so slow? It must be a combination of poor server equipment, data centers and the software used to run the web service... or is it something else?

How is your website speed on your WordPress site, hosted by a WordPress Host? Check it and post your results here for others to use to help them make best choice for their WordPress hosting.
They don't need to use WordPress if they don't want the benefits of WordPress, the CMS. Most of the Web Hosting websites are just a few pages with similar content. I've noticed that most of the web hosts use Bootstrap framework and themes for their sites.
Here are the Pingdom results of the 5 web hosts that I use.
Host 1: 650 ms
Host 2: 746 ms
Host 3: 1.78 s
Host 4: 1.60 s
Host 5: 475 ms
None of these call themselves "WordPress" hosts.
Hosting company does not use the same servers for their own website and for client websites. This should not be done for security and in case of a server problem - so customers can at least log in and contact the tech. support.

There's no reason to have your website made with WordPress, if it's better suited for another CMS (or plain html, why not?) - and you possess the means and the knowledge. Should "WordPress hosts" make a showcase superfast WordPress page just for show? I'm sure they could. But I find customer experience (and personal, with the host) much more telling.

Under 2 seconds page load time is good - such websites don't look slow when you visit them. Also, well made pages will show important content long before the entire page is loaded.
Isn't it really interesting how many 'WordPress Hosts' do not themselves even use WordPress for their own sites, promise 2-20X faster performance for your WP site, yet their static HTML site performance is slow.... How can they promise up to 20X faster speeds for your WordPress site if they can't even get their own corporate website to perform on plain HTML?

I've tested some web hosting company sites using: https://performance.sucuri.net/

I won't post any results here, but you should, just for giggles or your own education, test your current host's company website and that of other hosts just to see the results.

Some of the results I have seen would surprise you, global page loads averaging 1.7 seconds... etc... NOT 20X faster performance as advertised by some, at least not in my opinion... I would NEVER accept that level of performance... anything over 0.5 seconds for loads should be cause for concern in today's high speed environment for SEO, client usability, etc.

So what makes these hosting company sites run so slow? It must be a combination of poor server equipment, data centers and the software used to run the web service... or is it something else?

How is your website speed on your WordPress site, hosted by a WordPress Host? Check it and post your results here for others to use to help them make best choice for their WordPress hosting.

host and hostess gifts
q hostel
wizardofhits.com
host a forum on aws
how to make money 8 ball
bodhost.com
view2.be
trck.me
how does h q make money

This is a great topic, and one that's not mentioned a lot.

With WordPress, there's almost too many factors to ever make a website fly. Between plugins and images, even the fastest WordPress website will slow have a load issue, BUT depending on the host, I have seen one load at 9 seconds at one host, and 1.2 seconds on another. No changes to plugins or themes.

If their website is slow on HTML, there's not even any words on how that makes no sense.
They don't need to use WordPress if they don't want the benefits of WordPress, the CMS. Most of the Web Hosting websites are just a few pages with similar content. I've noticed that most of the web hosts use Bootstrap framework and themes for their sites.
If its within the topic of a WordPress host not using WordPress on their main website, it defeats the purpose and is basically a lie.
Should "WordPress hosts" make a showcase superfast WordPress page just for show? I'm sure they could. But I find customer experience (and personal, with the host) much more telling.

Under 2 seconds page load time is good - such websites don't look slow when you visit them. Also, well made pages will show important content long before the entire page is loaded.
The problem is WordPress hosts, and "WordPress hosts". Not at all the same.

If a host advertises WordPress services, but doesn't use it themselves, it becomes suspect. Do we take a car to a mechanic whose never driven a car, has no license, and walks or rides a bicycle to work (irony in this)? How do we trust them to know the concept of repairing a car? How would they know who a car would handle in stop and go traffic? How do we know they would understand the sound of gear changes in the engine? No different than a cPanel "expert" who only used VirtualMin. How would that work?
Do we take a car to a mechanic whose never driven a car, has no license, and walks or rides a bicycle to work (irony in this)? How do we trust them to know the concept of repairing a car? How would they know who a car would handle in stop and go traffic? How do we know they would understand the sound of gear changes in the engine? No different than a cPanel "expert" who only used VirtualMin. How would that work?
The fact a host can (and has) built the home page using some other tool for it, doesn't mean they don't know a thing about WordPress.
WordPress is novice (idiot?) friendly, but far from a well optimized tool. Why not go with something that fits your needs better?

Would take a no driving license but good reputation mechanic any day, over a (former?) racer with no, or bad reputation.

P.S. Before I could drive, I had fixed family cars - with no complaints. Mechanics is relatively simple and straight forward process - it's not engineering.
Also, I don't ride mountain bikes (prefer road bikes), but have no problems, or complaints from customers with mountain bikes. Understanding the concepts of suspension and disc brakes and tuning them is not rocket science.
And to paraphrase a good motorcycle riding instructor, who's never done racing himself: "would you rather be trained by Ross, or by Rossi's coach?"
Of course you would be the one that I could fully relate to and tear apart my statement
The fact a host can (and has) built the home page using some other tool for it, doesn't mean they don't know a thing about WordPress.
But staying with the topic of the thread, how does one know the hosts knows WordPress if their main website is not WordPress?
WordPress is novice (idiot?) friendly, but far from a well optimized tool.
It is and isn't. I have stories.
Would take a no driving license but good reputation mechanic any day, over a (former?) racer with no, or bad reputation.

P.S. Before I could drive, I had fixed family cars - with no complaints. Mechanics is relatively simple and straight forward process - it's not engineering.
Also, I don't ride mountain bikes (prefer road bikes), but have no problems, or complaints from customers with mountain bikes. Understanding the concepts of suspension and disc brakes and tuning them is not rocket science.
And to paraphrase a good motorcycle riding instructor, who's never done racing himself: "would you rather be trained by Ross, or by Rossi's coach?"

A lot of what you said is valid, and many elements of my life has been self-taught. Hands on mechanics and understanding work through our hands...makes sense. Not rocket science for us, but for some, they would have zero clue where to start.

The analogy of the trainer, I get it. When I worked in music, I bought my own equipment and self-trained my ears. I knew engineers who paid $10K for a course to learn music engineering, later wishing they just did what I did...use the $10K for equipment instead of a course and zero equipment in the end. I used a similar analogy on here some time ago. Buying a race car doesn't make you a race car driver. It just makes that person someone who owns a fast car. That's it.

With hosting, when a host claims to be a WordPress host for the sake of marketing, eventually it leads to situations of "sorry we cannot help you", and the customer always seems to end up with a cPanel account.
But staying with the topic of the thread, how does one know the hosts knows WordPress if their main website is not WordPress?
That is a very good question.
How can one tell a host is good for any kind of hosting? Not a rhetorical question.

Been looking into this, reading reviews, user experience, trying things out... Even a host one uses personally can turn better, or worse over time. Owners can change, or the company practice, or policy, pricing... Same goes for reviews: if they are over a few months old, they might no longer be relevant. And it's hard to keep testing many hosts all the time for any one person.

So it seems to me that the only really sure thing is trying out by oneself, and being prepared to move on at any time. But when choosing where to try (first), I'd not choose randomly. That's where experience of people who you know, or don't, but believe they are being honest when sharing experience (i.e. NOT paid/sponsored top 10 hosts reviews) come in play. So the reviews still do have some weight, recent user experience even more so IMO.

A host that has good reputation for managed WordPress hosting is where I'd first try. And, yes - for all I know: WPcycle does look like one to me at least. If I were looking for a managed WP hosting, I'd try it out. Regardless of whether the front page is made in WordPress, or not.
Hosting company does not use the same servers for their own website and for client websites. This should not be done for security and in case of a server problem - so customers can at least log in and contact the tech. support.

There's no reason to have your website made with WordPress, if it's better suited for another CMS (or plain html, why not?) - and you possess the means and the knowledge. Should "WordPress hosts" make a showcase superfast WordPress page just for show? I'm sure they could. But I find customer experience (and personal, with the host) much more telling.

Under 2 seconds page load time is good - such websites don't look slow when you visit them. Also, well made pages will show important content long before the entire page is loaded.
A host not using WordPress, then professing to provide WordPress users with 20X faster hosting on their platform, when their own site is slow and shouldn't be, is the issue...

Yes, a host shouldn't be hosting their site on the same servers as their clients, resellers do this... lol, however a host should be able to provide for their own website high performance, speed... I've seen hosts with 1.7 second average load times for their sites which is unacceptable in today's world, if they can't even get performance for themselves, why would anyone expect them to provide performance on a shared hosting environment for WordPress?

I know everyone talks about how WordPress is slow and using plugins will slow you down, etc., I don't have that experience and we are running 57 plugins on our company site... <0.160 page loads globally... on WordPress.
How can one tell a host is good for any kind of hosting?
Good point. Similarly, having a fast WordPress site as their main site doesn't tell anything about a WordPress host's capability. For example, the site might as well be optimized by someone else.

We have enough hypes in the industry, don't try to make another up.
Good point. Similarly, having a fast WordPress site as their main site doesn't tell anything about a WordPress host's capability. For example, the site might as well be optimized by someone else.

We have enough hypes in the industry, don't try to make another up.
This is why we don't mention any specific software on our web hosting pages.
We can manage a variety of platforms.
Wordpress isn't the answer for every single web project it is incredibly bloated software and badly coded in a lot of cases, some plugins are terrible.
The hosting server is really only one thing to look at, you can have a dedicated server running one Wordpress site and the site could still perform poorly, if you have a plugin that loads several large images as an example that will slow the page load down and if you have a page that loads 200 HTTP requests this will affect the performance.
Most Wordpress issues are code related.
@TUNEDCLOUD - I am not entirely certain what you are trying to showcase for us here but as @MechanicWeb-shoss has put it "we have enough hypes in the industry" and I will add "without making a useless one up." Why did I use the term "useless" - because it doesn't take much effort to modify Wordpress in such a way that it is no longer recognized as Wordpress by scanners or someone inspecting the source. Normal Wordpress links don't go anywhere, etc - everything you are shouting here is a bluff of hot air.

Using Highest Full Load Numbers (Geolocation):
AWS: 1.396 secs (Major Metropolitan Outside NA)
Azure: 1.472 secs (Major Metropolitan Outside NA)
Tunedcloud: 1.615 secs (In America)
Other Site: 1.398 secs (Major Metropolitan Outside NA - the otherside of the world from where the central server cluster is located
By your own standards, you should "pack it up."

These are full loads as TTFB can be easily be manipulated by just using a spinner while everything loads.

The web host's own servers don't matter to the client, the one the client uses does.
@TUNEDCLOUD - I am not entirely certain what you are trying to showcase for us here but as @MechanicWeb-shoss has put it "we have enough hypes in the industry" and I will add "without making a useless one up." Why did I use the term "useless" - because it doesn't take much effort to modify Wordpress in such a way that it is no longer recognized as Wordpress by scanners or someone inspecting the source. Normal Wordpress links don't go anywhere, etc - everything you are shouting here is a bluff of hot air.
By your own standards, you should "pack it up."

These are full loads as TTFB can be easily be manipulated by just using a spinner while everything loads.

The web host's own servers don't matter to the client, the one the client uses does.
I don't know what testing you are using, but this thread has been using the following for comparison:

https://performance.sucuri.net/

I just pulled a test for TUNEDCLOUD from the above site.

We are running on 2 servers, 2 cpu cores and 4GB ram each, one of our smallest cloud VPS instances, I bet AWS and Azure are running much bigger machines by comparison...and we are using the same cloud infrastructure that our clients get, they actually run on much larger instances than our company site currently as part of a proof of performance run we have been doing showing our clients they don't need 'bigger' machines to get performance out of a VPS for their businesses.

TUNEDCLOUD = 0.178
AWS = 0.803
Azure = 0.739
northebridge = 0.947

Using the Sucuri testing servers.


We will just have to agree to disagree about the 'hot air', but I will say that after 12+ years developing scripts for WP I can tell if someone is using WordPress on their site, even with the cloaked links, etc., and if someone is using ReactJS, Gatsby, etc. to output static pages for their WordPress site... it really isn't WordPress anymore at that point, is it? Which is really the whole point of why I brought up this topic.

And if they can't get their own servers to run their heavily modified WordPress site or static HTML faster than 2 seconds TTFB, that is an issue for their clients... but hey, just OK is OK for some people I guess.
This is far from the original argument of this thread and might have some merit, still not a concrete proof of anything.

If a WordPress host is using WordPress as their main site and the TTFB is a *high* value - that might raise some question for some, for example, their lack of interest in optimizing their site.

But if the TTFB is fast, that doesn't add any credibility to anything - as the site might as well be optimized by someone else. For the same reason, a WordPress host has no obligation at all that their site has to be built using WordPress.

But if the host is not a WordPress host and their TTFB/Page Load Time is high, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about their capability as a host. A host's primary job is to provide hosting, not to optimize websites.
I don't know what testing you are using, but this thread has been using the following for comparison:

https://performance.sucuri.net/

I just pulled a test for TUNEDCLOUD from the above site.

We are running on 2 servers, 2 cpu cores and 4GB ram each, one of our smallest cloud VPS instances, I bet AWS and Azure are running much bigger machines by comparison...and we are using the same cloud infrastructure that our clients get, they actually run on much larger instances than our company site currently as part of a proof of performance run we have been doing showing our clients they don't need 'bigger' machines to get performance out of a VPS for their businesses.

TUNEDCLOUD = 0.178
AWS = 0.803
Azure = 0.739
northebridge = 0.947

Using the Sucuri testing servers.


We will just have to agree to disagree about the 'hot air', but I will say that after 12+ years developing scripts for WP I can tell if someone is using WordPress on their site, even with the cloaked links, etc., and if someone is using ReactJS, Gatsby, etc. to output static pages for their WordPress site... it really isn't WordPress anymore at that point, is it? Which is really the whole point of why I brought up this topic.

And if they can't get their own servers to run their heavily modified WordPress site or static HTML faster than 2 seconds TTFB, that is an issue for their clients... but hey, just OK is OK for some people I guess.
@TUNEDCLOUD - I used the aforementioned linked Sucuri test to retrieve the results I obtained - results were retrieved at the time of posting. For the sake of the comparison, I chose to use "Other" moniker so it was left to be the third party not listed but I guess giving the fact that it was a cluster and stating that the slowest location was on a completely different side of the world defeats that purpose; my apologies.

Given you have provided that your stack information is 2 servers with 2 CPU cores, and 4GB of RAM each - every single comparison you have listed is well beyond that. The standard VMWare Instances are running 13CPU Cores, 12GB of RAM each, across processors probably far higher specced out compared to the ones you are likely using and are obviously more than 2 servers supported by VDMS (Verizon Digital Media Services).

But now you are comparing an enterprise site to a web host. That's why I listed "Other."

I'm assuming when you ran your last samples that was TTFB which all responded in under 2 seconds.

However, now you are also changing the tune of the topic to "Time to First Byte" and that can be manipulated too easily as I brought up earlier.

Here's the average load time of everyone here that I could find a URL to get to, globally - as of writing this post the test was performed:

TUNEDCLOUD: 0.245 secs
WPCYCLE: 2.984 secs
CPK Web Services: 1.085 secs
MechanicWeb: 0.390 secs
NortheBridge: 0.507 secs
And do you know that it was actually @WPCYCLE that felt like the fastest site to load -off a 5.5Gbps internet connection even though the above says nearly 3 seconds?

So I am trying to figure out primarily what the endgame of this particular topic has now become with the goalpost moved?

That's really it for me - what are you trying to establish? That some service providers are slower than others? Of course they are. That's like me telling you that some service providers have far more behind them than others. Look at your actual business' cluster versus mine - you're completely outmatched yet you do a remarkable job of keeping up in comparison. In enterprise, we call that "enterprise bloat" where it just becomes a point that it doesn't matter because we can throw "X" at it and make up the performance difference.

But you did start this thread off with statements about providers "claiming to be 2-20 times faster than 'Y' or 'Z'" but I don't think you declared what benchmark you were targeting. Even so, the premise was of it not being true yet looking at the results found here you would need to move the goalpost again to make any argument about the 2-20 times faster. To be 2 times faster than anyone on the above list you needed to beat a global response of 0.490 secs and you didn't for one and have entered the margin of error for another although given the huge stack difference I'm willing to throw the towel in.

So what is the endgame measurement you are trying to look for?
Just because a provider who claims they are faster but own websites do not have the best TTFB does not mean their customers' sites will have poor TTFB. Sure, you would think the provider who tries to get the best TTFB for their website too whether static (HTML) or dynamic (CMS like WordPress).

Also, keep in mind that 3rd party tools are never 100% accurate for various reasons.

It is best to test page loading speeds by using network tools within Google Chrome as you can have it skip disk configs/caching etc during the test and is much more accurate.
We will just have to agree to disagree about the 'hot air', but I will say that after 12+ years developing scripts for WP
And I guess that's what this thread was really about here. Talk about WP, talk about TTFB, but leave off the "we" talk, please, so it looks more like a thread about Wordpress and hosting than "something else".
And do you know that it was actually @WPCYCLE that felt like the fastest site to load -off a 5.5Gbps internet connection even though the above says nearly 3 seconds?
Thank You.

As said...

Quote Originally Posted by HostXNow_Chris  View Post
Also, keep in mind that 3rd party tools are never 100% accurate for various reasons.
Fully agree.


Quote Originally Posted by NortheBridge  View Post
But you did start this thread off with statements about providers "claiming to be 2-20 times faster than 'Y' or 'Z'" but I don't think you declared what benchmark you were targeting. Even so, the premise was of it not being true yet looking at the results found here you would need to move the goalpost again to make any argument about the 2-20 times faster. To be 2 times faster than anyone on the above list you needed to beat a global response of 0.490 secs and you didn't for one and have entered the margin of error for another although given the huge stack difference I'm willing to throw the towel in.

Classic advertising, which is commonly overlooked until someone asks "faster than ____________"?
@TUNEDCLOUD - I used the aforementioned linked Sucuri test to retrieve the results I obtained - results were retrieved at the time of posting. For the sake of the comparison, I chose to use "Other" moniker so it was left to be the third party not listed but I guess giving the fact that it was a cluster and stating that the slowest location was on a completely different side of the world defeats that purpose; my apologies.
Given you have provided that your stack information is 2 servers with 2 CPU cores, and 4GB of RAM each - every single comparison you have listed is well beyond that. The standard VMWare Instances are running 13CPU Cores, 12GB of RAM each, across processors probably far higher specced out compared to the ones you are likely using and are obviously more than 2 servers supported by VDMS (Verizon Digital Media Services).

But now you are comparing an enterprise site to a web host. That's why I listed "Other."

I'm assuming when you ran your last samples that was TTFB which all responded in under 2 seconds.

However, now you are also changing the tune of the topic to "Time to First Byte" and that can be manipulated too easily as I brought up earlier.

Here's the average load time of everyone here that I could find a URL to get to, globally - as of writing this post the test was performed:
And do you know that it was actually @WPCYCLE that felt like the fastest site to load -off a 5.5Gbps internet connection even though the above says nearly 3 seconds?

So I am trying to figure out primarily what the endgame of this particular topic has now become with the goalpost moved?

That's really it for me - what are you trying to establish? That some service providers are slower than others? Of course they are. That's like me telling you that some service providers have far more behind them than others. Look at your actual business' cluster versus mine - you're completely outmatched yet you do a remarkable job of keeping up in comparison. In enterprise, we call that "enterprise bloat" where it just becomes a point that it doesn't matter because we can throw "X" at it and make up the performance difference.

But you did start this thread off with statements about providers "claiming to be 2-20 times faster than 'Y' or 'Z'" but I don't think you declared what benchmark you were targeting. Even so, the premise was of it not being true yet looking at the results found here you would need to move the goalpost again to make any argument about the 2-20 times faster. To be 2 times faster than anyone on the above list you needed to beat a global response of 0.490 secs and you didn't for one and have entered the margin of error for another although given the huge stack difference I'm willing to throw the towel in.

So what is the endgame measurement you are trying to look for?
Seems you are NOT using the same test on Sucuri: https://performance.sucuri.net/domain/northebridge.com

That test does not give option to choose your locations, etc. for testing page speed. I also did not list TTFB, I listed Total values, which are full page load values on Sucuri test. I never 'moved the goalpost' I just responded to your comment about TTFB.

Yes, WPCycle's site loads fast, likely due to the front page having no images, etc... light. Great JOB!

Given you have provided that your stack information is 2 servers with 2 CPU cores, and 4GB of RAM each - every single comparison you have listed is well beyond that. The standard VMWare Instances are running 13CPU Cores, 12GB of RAM each, across processors probably far higher specced out compared to the ones you are likely using and are obviously more than 2 servers supported by VDMS (Verizon Digital Media Services).
And... we still outperform them with less equipment in our testing... and we didn't just throw resources, 'Enterprise Bloat', at the problem, knowledge wins, go figure.

As for our CPU specs being spec'd out 'lower' than our competitors... Don't think so... We are on UpCloud.com's network XEON GOLD CPU's, etc., even if our CPU's are lower spec, not likely, we still outperform by comparison. We do not use VDMS, not sure why you mention that, and if the companies we compare to have more equipment and our 2 little servers outperform them now, can't wait to see results when we switch back to our 20 CPU core and 2TB RAM servers later.

Look at your actual business' cluster versus mine - you're completely outmatched yet you do a remarkable job of keeping up in comparison. In enterprise, we call that "enterprise bloat" where it just becomes a point that it doesn't matter because we can throw "X" at it and make up the performance difference.
Thank you for the compliment!

But you did start this thread off with statements about providers "claiming to be 2-20 times faster than 'Y' or 'Z'" but I don't think you declared what benchmark you were targeting. Even so, the premise was of it not being true yet looking at the results found here you would need to move the goalpost again to make any argument about the 2-20 times faster. To be 2 times faster than anyone on the above list you needed to beat a global response of 0.490 secs and you didn't for one and have entered the margin of error for another although given the huge stack difference I'm willing to throw the towel in.
BTW, I never said our service is 20X faster hosting, that is what competitors say on their sites, I can list a MAJOR company that does this right now, but that would break the rules here...

https://performance.sucuri.net/domain/tunedcloud.com

0.186 seconds, guess that beats 0.490 = 2.634X faster...


From company site showing '20X faster' marketing for WordPress:

"When searching for fast WordPress Hosting for your blog (and why wouldn't you want a fast blog), make sure to select the host with a high performance [REDACTED] platform. That's [REDACTED] Hosting! For page loads up to 20X faster than competing WordPress hosts, make sure to host on our blazing fast [REDACTED] Servers. Your account even includes PHP 7 and free HTTPS protection to meet the recommended WordPress Hosting environment!"

This is the type of marketing in the hosting industry that is a 'bluff of hot air', the company that is marketing like this should actually be ashamed of themselves, but they are proud of this marketing, all over their site, the FTC should look at this type of HYPED marketing from hosts and take action with fines, this marketing is fluff and doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
we still outperform them with less equipment in our testing
Having ignored the request to make this about Wordpress hosting *in general*, closed.