A2 Hosting Vs. SiteGround: Performance
Server Response Time
To check the performance of the two services, I hosted demo sites with both and then tested the server response time of my sites. My A2 Hosting site recorded an average server response time of 336 ms, while my SiteGround site had an average server response time of 409 ms.
Hence, A2 Hosting has a much better server response time than SiteGround.
Uptime
When it comes to uptime, I tested the two services for the last few months.
A2 had an uptime of 99.99% uptime while SiteGround had an uptime of 99.99%, which makes them exceptionally reliable.
Load Testing
My next test of performance is load testing, wherein I tested the performance of my sites hosted with the two services by sending 1000 concurrent traffic.
As I performed the load testing on my sites, my A2 site recorded 185 ms. My SiteGround site, on the other hand, recorded 179 ms.
Hence, A2 had a better score than SiteGround once again.
Global TTFB
Next, I tested the Global TTFB for the two services by pinging my sites hosted with them from 10 global locations. This test is beneficial for those websites that largely depend on multiple global locations for their traffic.
My A2 site had great TTFB in all the global locations with an average of 639 ms.
My SiteGround site had an average of 890 ms. A2 is the winner in terms of Global TTFB.
Core Web Vitals
While my A2 site had a ‘Largest Contentful Paint’ of 458 ms, a ‘Total Blocking Time’ of 0 ms, and a ‘Cumulative Layout Shift’ of 0.07, my SiteGround site recorded a ‘Largest Contentful Paint’ of 572 ms, a ‘Total Blocking Time’ of 0 ms, and a ‘Cumulative Layout Shift’ of 0.07.
Going by the results, SiteGround’s Total Blocking Time is way too high, and A2 has comparatively better Core Web Vitals.
A2 Hosting Vs. SiteGround: Features
Data Center Locations
Data Center Locations hold a lot of importance in hosting, and A2 has 4 data center locations with its data centers in the USA, Europe, and Asia. However, SiteGround has 6 self-owned data center locations. Hence, customers will have more data center locations to choose from with SiteGround than A2 Hosting.
Conclusion
I have tried to present you with a comprehensive picture of the two services, and at the same time, I tried to keep things precise and simple for you to understand. I studied the features of the services closely and tested the performance of the two services using some of the most advanced testing methods. Going by the test results, A2 Hosting has a better performance than SiteGround.
With increased pricing, removal of unlimited sites in GoGeek and Growbig plans, and the new control panel, that made it the users hard to contact customer support, there is no wonder the search for the SiteGround alternatives is increasing forever. The only good thing about SiteGround we noted was their reliable uptime and quality support, although there have been some limits raised on how many times you can contact the support per month.
