At around a quarter of a second, WP Engine had the ability to provide excellent filling times that were much faster than the outcomes from our comparison of the Bluehost, HostGator and SiteGround budget plan shared hosting strategies, although these plans were much less expensive – Sitespeed.Io. However, WP Engine also performed much better than the test website in our Kinsta evaluation, revealing that WP Engine can hold their own versus other hosts in the exact same cost bracket.
With more than 450,000 sales to date, a long list of features and numerous website demonstrations, it’s not tough to see why Avada is so popular. Sitespeed.Io. Nevertheless, all of this performance can have a large influence on site speed, making Avada a great candidate for screening how well WP Engine can handle more heavyweight WordPress sites.
(click to expand) For this WP Engine packing time test, the Avada style was installed and its Firm site demo was imported. Once again, the packing times were taped by Pingdom at 30-minute intervals over a 7-day period. The typical load time for the WordPress site using the Twenty Seventeen style was 1.43 seconds.
Due to the fact that of this, the loading times were less outstanding. However, thinking about the selection of functions used on the Avada Firm demo homepage, these times are nothing to complain about. That stated, they’re not rather as fast as the times tape-recorded in our Kinsta hosting evaluation. Not everyone who picks a multipurpose style such as Avada will utilize its demo websites precisely as they are.
For this post, the outcomes were better, with a typical loading time of 898 milliseconds, compared with the 1.43 seconds of the Agency homepage demonstration. A post produced with the Avada theme and utilized in our Pingdom performance testing. (click to enlarge) Therefore, if you prepare to use a feature-rich WordPress style such as Avada, it’s well worth investing a long time testing what impact the various demos, page components and widgets have on your filling times before introducing your website.
While you may not want to use a theme as standard as the light-weight Twenty Seventeen, you probably will not use one of the demonstrations as-is from a heavyweight multipurpose theme such as Avada either. Therefore, if your website strikes a good balance in between functions and functionality, you might enjoy filling times someplace in between those experienced by our test websites.
(click to enlarge) When establishing our test sites with WP Engine, they were set up on the servers in their European information center. Due to the fact that of this, the European testing location was chosen in Pingdom. Although you can choose which information center your website is hosted in, with choices all around the world, the range your visitors are from the website will have an impact on the packing times they experience.
Loading times are a beneficial way to evaluate the quality of a web host, but it’s likewise essential to get an idea of how your website will perform when several visitors are accessing it at the very same time. For this part of our WP Engine review, we utilized the Load Impact service to mimic multiple users concurrently accessing the WP Engine-hosted WordPress site (Sitespeed.Io).
The loading times of the website were recorded by Load Impact at routine periods to see how well the site carried out as the visitor numbers grew. Once again, the multipurpose Avada style was used on the test website. The Load Impact test shows that the WP Engine-hosted website had the ability to manage 250 simultaneous virtual users without any drop in efficiency.
The results are offered on the Load Effect website if you ‘d like to know more about the test. Similar outcomes were recorded when checking the Kinsta handled WordPress hosting, with 250 synchronised virtual users having no effect on the efficiency of the test site. Nevertheless, our tests of the budget plan hosting from Bluehost, GoDaddy and HostGator exposed that all three had issues with more than 50 virtual users accessing the sites at the exact same time.
Downtime, no matter how small, can have a very unfavorable influence on the effectiveness of your website. Periods of unavailability can make your site and, by extension, you look less than professional and untrustworthy, causing missed out on chances and a negative reputation. Neither of our sites hosted with WP Engine experienced any downtime during the seven-day testing period.
If your website does experience less than the agreed uptime levels, you can get credit towards your regular monthly fees. Sitespeed.Io. As you can see, WordPress sites hosted by WP Engine have the prospective to pack quickly, and handle numerous synchronised visitors with very little downtime. But just how much do you have to pay for this type of service? There are 3 predefined WP Engine hosting plans to pick from, as well as a custom option that appropriates for sites receiving millions of visitors a month, or those who need to host at least 25 WordPress sites on one account.
When it comes to the predefined WP Engine hosting plans, your choices are as follows: $35 each month for one WordPress site, up to 25K check outs and 10 GB bandwidth per month, with 10 GB of storage. $115 each month for 5 WordPress sites, as much as 100K visits and 200 GB bandwidth per month, with 20 GB of storage.
As pointed out earlier in this WP Engine evaluation, all plans consist of access to the 35-plus WordPress themes from StudioPress and a totally free SSL certificate. You likewise have the alternative of installing more WordPress websites on your prepare for an extra $20 per month per site. Nevertheless, all of your sites will be sharing the resources available on your strategy, such as the bandwidth and storage allowances.
Despite which of the predefined strategies you pick, your WordPress sites will be hosted on the very same kind of hardware. Therefore, whether you’re paying $35 or $290 monthly, you need to be able to delight in comparable efficiency levels to our test websites. Obviously, your website configuration and traffic levels will play a big part in determining how well your sites perform.
With each strategy having limits on bandwidth and visitor numbers, you might be questioning what occurs if you discuss your allowance (Sitespeed.Io). If this does occur, clients on the Startup, Growth, or Scale strategies will incur an overage expense of $2 per 1,000 extra monthly visitors. You can find out more about these charges and how WP Engine count visitors on this page.
The extra features, such as automated backups, security scanning, and WordPress updates, need to take some of the stress of handling a website. Likewise, having access to more than 35 top quality premium WordPress styles assists to balance out some of the cost of hosting your website with WP Engine. The user friendly developer-friendly functions, such as the development and staging environments, in addition to the ability to transfer websites to customers, are more factors to think about WP Engine.
Although in the exact same region as much of the other leading managed WordPress hosting providers, paying $35 per month or more isn’t sensible for every site. Nevertheless, if your site produces earnings, is necessary to your business or is outgrowing your existing host, it makes good sense to add WP Engine to your shortlist.
Joe is an experienced WordPress user who delights in sharing the suggestions and understanding he’s gotten from using this fantastic platform for several years. You can find out more about Joe on his website.