Hosting.com Review 2026
Hosting.com, formerly A2 Hosting before it was acquired by World Host Group, recorded an average of 462 ms and 99.98% uptime in Q4 2025. The host secured an overall score of 7.23 out of 10, ranking 11 among 34 providers in our 2026 WordPress hosting rankings. The entry plan starts at $3.99 per month, which makes it a mid range budget option.Â
The plan renews at $11.99 per month. The host has replaced A2 Hosting’s data centers with new infrastructure. Hence, this is a clean state review for this host. In this review, we will walk you through Hosting.com’s TTFB, Uptime, Load test, Global TTFB, WP Bench (Hardware), Features and Pricing.
Besides, we will compare the host with its competitors: Hosting.com, Bluehost, InMotion and SiteGround to see the strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, we will explain who should choose the hosting service and who should avoid it.
Key Findings Summary
| Metric | Result | Score |
| TTFB (US) | 462ms | 7 / 10 |
| Uptime | 99.98% | 9.0 / 10 |
| Load Test | 43ms / 0.00% error | 9 / 10 |
| Global TTFB | 544ms | 7 / 10 |
| WPBench (Hardware) | 5.5 / 10 | 5.5 / 10 |
| Features | No CDN, Email incl., Daily backups | 5.0 / 10 |
| Value (Intro Price) | $3.99/mo ($3–5 tier) | 8 / 10 |
| OVERALL | Rank #11 of 34 | 7.23 / 10 |
Hosting.com recorded 43 ms with 0% in the Load test, reflecting excellent load handling capacity. The host ranks #5 out of #34 providers in terms of load handling. Besides, Hosting.com recorded an uptime of 99.98%, which is pretty strong and above the field average. The host offers a competitive intro price of $3.99 per month with email included for no extra charges. Besides, all plans come with daily backup included plus 30 day retention.Â
Hosting.com doesn’t come with a CDN, which significantly hampers its global performance. Further, the host has below average hardware with a WP Bench score of 5.5 out of 10. The renewal pricing is $11.99 per month, which is a 200% increase from the intro price ($3.99 per month). The global TTFB revealed weak global TTFB outside America with 628 ms in Europe and 744 ms in Asia Pacific out of not having a CDN.
TTFB
Hosting.com recorded a TTFB of 462 ms in our Q4 2025 with a score of 7 out 10. As per our tests, 10 hosts made it to the Elite category as their TTFB was below 350 and 7 hosts including Hosting.com sit in the 450 ms to 500 ms range, while 3 hosts recorded TTFB above 700. Pressable is 121 ms slower than the field’s best with 341 ms and GoDaddy is 289 ms faster than the field’s worst with 751 ms. We tested the TTFB using the Pingdom tool monitoring across 19 US locations every 60 seconds 24/7.
A TTFB of 462 ms puts the host in the middle of the list with a solid yet not outstanding performance. The TTFB is adequate for any blog or small site with a US based audience. While it’s not an Elite tier, it’s again not problematic. It’s hard to say if the host’’s TTFB has improved or deteriorated over the years since this is the first testing data of the new Hosting.com infrastructure, collected from our tests in Q4 2025.Â
Uptime
Hosting.com recorded an uptime of 99.98% in Q4 2025 with a score of 9 out of 10, which is above the host’s 99.9% SLA commitment. Now, this uptime is different from the provider’s marketing claim since we tested it.Â
The uptime performance is the product of the post migration infrastructure, characterized by new data centers and new baseline. A 9 out of 10 uptime score on our scale means a perfect uptime and only 5 out of the 34 providers we tested could achieve it so far.
Load Testing
For sites that expect traffic spikes, it’s crucial to get a host that can handle the traffic spikes and it’s one such area where cheap hosts often fail. We tested the load handling capacity of Hosting.com by using Loader.io to send 0 to 100 concurrent users over 60 seconds.
The host recorded with an average response time of 43 ms with zero error rate, scoring 9 out 10. 6 out of the 34 providers that we tested failed this test with an error rate more than 50% and that included expensive hosts like Rocket.net.Â
Hosting.com stands among the best hosts in this field including Pressable with 12 ms, WordPress.com with 16 ms, GreenGeeks with 26 ms and InMotion with 31 ms. All of these 5 providers including Hosting.com recorded zero errors in the Load test. Interestingly, Hosting.com at $3.99 per month actually outperformed hosts that cost 3x to 8x more.
Server Hardware (WPBench)
WP Bench tests the raw server resources meaning CPU, RAM, and disk I/O, independent of caching. Hosting.com scored 5.5.out of 10, which reflects modest allocated resources, which is expected for a $3.99 per month shared plan. The top performers in this field are Bluehost with 9.6, ScalaHosting with 8.8, Kinsta with 8.8, and SiteGround with 8.4.
Hosting.com has a good TTFB despite middling hardware, which suggests effective LiteSpeed caching. However, it may not work equally well for plugin heavy sites, WooCommerce stores or sites with complex database queries as the hardware limitation should become a bottleneck.
The low score indicates limited allocated resources and doesn’t indicate any server issue. The Starter plan comes with 2GB RAM, 2 vCPUs, LiteSpeed Web Server, AMD EPYC CPU, and NVMe SSD.
Global TTFB
Hosting.com recorded an average global TTFB of 544 ms, scoring 7 out of 10 in the test. The TTFB in America is excellent as the server is US based. However, the TTFB is extremely poor in Europe and Asia Pacific with 628 ms and 744 ms respectively. The TTFB in London is 1.1 seconds, which is extremely slow page loading. The difference in TTFB is mainly caused due to the absence of a CDN as every request will have to travel to the origin server, which is in the US.
The issue can be largely avoided using an edge CDN. Hosts using edge CDN have recorded excellent global TTFB with WP Engine (169ms), and Pressable (231ms). Hostinger Business outperforms Hosting.com with 495 ms vs 544 ms just by using a static CDN. While Hosting.com is adequate for sites with US based audiences, sites with international audiences should avoid Hosting.com and choose good hosts with CDN like WP Engine, or Pressable.
Hosting.com vs Competitors
| Metric | Hosting.com | Hostinger | Bluehost | InMotion | SiteGround |
| Rank | #11 | #5 | #14 | #24 | #22 |
| Score | 7.23 | 8.02 | 6.90 | 6.45 | 6.50 |
| TTFB | 462ms | 472ms | 520ms | 537ms | 632ms |
| Uptime | 99.98% | 99.98% | 99.95% | 99.99% | 99.97% |
| Load Test | 43ms/0% | 245ms/0% | 170ms/9% | 31ms/0% | 170ms/0% |
| Global TTFB | 544ms | 495ms | 345ms | 740ms | 833ms |
| WPBench | 5.5 | 7.4 | 9.6 | 7.4 | 8.4 |
| CDN | None | Static | Static | None | Addon |
| Included | Addon | Addon | Included | Included | |
| Backups | Daily | Daily | Weekly | Addon | Daily |
| Intro Price | $3.99 | $3.69 | $3.99 | $2.99 | $3.99 |
| Renewal | $11.99 | ~$7.99 | ~$8.99 | ~$9.99 | $17.99 |
| Features | 5.0/10 | 7.0/10 | 6.0/10 | 3.0/10 | 7.0/10 |
| Tier | Strong | Average | Average | Strong | Below Avg |
Hosting.com vs Hostinger Business
Hostinger ranks higher than Hosting.com with 5 vs 11 with an overall score of 8.02 vs 7.23. Hostinger comes with static CDN and offers comparatively better global TTFB with 495 ms vs 544 ms. Hostinger also beats Hosting.com on hardware with a WP Bench score of 7.4 vs 5.5. While both hosts offer similar intro prices with $3.99 vs $3.69, Hostinger has cheaper renewals with $7.99 vs $11.99.
However, Hostinger.com beats Hostinger in Load handling by a wide margin with 43 ms vs 245 ms. Besides, Hosting.com comes with email included while Hostinger offers it only as an Addon. Users who look for an overall better package can go with Hostinger while those with sites that may expect traffic spikes can go with Hosting.com.
Hosting.com vs Bluehost
Both Hosting.com vs Bluehost offers the same intro price of $3.99 per month. However, Hosting.com outranks Bluehost with an overall score of 11 vs 14. Hosting.com has better TTFB with 462 vs 520, superior uptime with 99.98% vs 99.95%, and better load handling with 43 ms with zero errors vs 170 ms with zero errors. Bluehost beats Hosting.com on global TTFB with 345ms vs 544ms, which is possible because of its CDN.
Bluehost also has a better hardware score with 9.6 vs 5.5 and cheaper renewals with $8.99 vs $11.99. While Hosting.com is ideal for sites with target audiences in the US, Bluehost is a better option for sites with global audiences that need server horsepower.
Hosting.com vs InMotion Hosting
Hosting.com costs more than InMotion Hosting with $3.99 per month vs $2.99 per month but ranks higher with 11 vs 24, scoring 7.23 vs 6.45. Hosting.com beats InMotion on TTFB with 462 ms vs 537 ms and global TTFB with 544 ms vs 740 ms. Besides, Hosting.com has better features than InMotion with a score of 5.0 vs 3.0. InMotion charges additional price for backups while Hosting.com offers it for free.
InMotion, on the other hand, has slightly better uptime with 99.99% vs 99.98%, better load handling with 31 ms vs 43 ms and better hardware with a WP Bench score of 7.4 vs 5.5. Further, InMotion’s renewal price is lower than that of Hosting.com with $9.99 vs $11.98. Hosting.com is an ideal for anyone looking for better overall value despite the higher entry price while InMotion is ideal for sites that need raw server resources and uptime.
Hosting.com vs SiteGround
Hostinger.com recorded better TTFB than SiteGound with 462 ms vs 632 ms and also has better uptime with 99.98% vs 99.97%. The host beats SiteGround on load handling with 43 ms/0% vs 170 ms /0% and global TTFB with 544 ms vs 833 ms. However, SiteGround wins on hardware with 8.4 vs 5.5 and features with 7.0 vs 5.0.
While both hosts have the same intro price of $3.99 per month, SiteGround has a significantly higher renewal price with $17.99 vs $11.99. You can choose Hosting.com if you need performance but if you rely on brand reputation and Google Cloud infrastructure, you can go with SiteGound.
Pricing & Plans
| Plan | Sites | Storage | RAM | vCPUs | Intro/mo | Renew/mo | Increase |
| Starter | 1 | 15 GB | 2 GB | 2 | $3.99 | $11.99 | 200% |
| Plus | 2 | 30 GB | 3 GB | 2 | $3.99 | $14.99 | 276% |
| Pro | 10 | 50 GB | 6 GB | 4 | $6.99 | $22.99 | 229% |
| Max | 100 | 100 GB | 8 GB | 4 | $8.99 | $27.99 | 211% |
Hosting.com’s intro price of $3.99 per month is competitive for sure, the same as Bluehost and SiteGround. However, the renewal price of $11.99 per month is a straight 200% increase from the intro price. SiteGround’s renewal is far steeper with $17.99, while that of Bluehost and Hostinger is $8.99 and $7.99 respectively. Hence, Hostinger has the cheapest renewal while Hosting.com’s renewal lies in the middle of the list, being cheaper than SiteGound and more expensive than Bluehost and Hostinger.
Hosting.com’s Plus plan is worth mentioning as it’s available for the same intro price as the Starter but offers double storage with 30 GB disk space and allows you to add a second website even though the renewal jumps to $14.99.
Features Assessment
| Feature | Status | Score | Context |
| CDN | None | 0 / 5.0 | Edge CDN = 5.0, Static = 3.5 |
| Email Hosting | Included | 3.0 / 3.0 | Full marks |
| Backups | Daily | 2.0 / 2.0 | Full marks |
| TOTAL | 5.0 / 10.0 | Below average |
The fact that Hosting.com lacks a CDN is the biggest problem and that’s also the reason behind its bad global TTFB. Even though the host claims that Cloudflare Enterprise CDN can be included through Rocket.net integration in their manager WordPress plans, starting at $11.99 per month, the shared plan that we tested did not include the CDN. Hostinger Business comes with a static CDN even at $3.69 per month. However, the email and backups are solid with max score as you can see.
Who Should (and Shouldn’t) Use Hosting.com
Blogs with US based audiences and small business sites looking for a budget friendly host with reliable load handling can go with Hosting.com. Sites that expect traffic spikes can largely benefit from choosing Hosting.com since the host recorded an excellent load handling of 43 ms with zero errors at such a low price point.
Users who need email and daily backups included for no additional cost can choose Hosting.com. Users who are comfortable with cPanel and need a familiar interface can choose Hosting.com.
Hosting.com is not ideal for sites that rely on international traffic since the host lacks CDN and has high global TTFB across Europe and Asia Pacific with 628 ms and 744 ms respectively. Users who are looking for cheaper renewals should avoid Hosting.com as its renewal price of $11.99 is 200% more than the intro price of $3.99. Hostinger offers much cheaper renewals than Hosting.com with $7.99 vs $11.99.
Users who largely rely on brand’s reputation, Hosting.com is a brand which is less than a year old. Most importantly, customer reviews are still mixed as it migrated from A2 Hosting.
Final Verdict
Hosting.com scored 7.23 out of 10 in our 2026 web hosting rankings with a rank of 11 out of 34 providers we tested. At an entry price point of $3.99 per month for the Starter plan for 1 year term, it offers strong uptime, excellent load handling during traffic spikes and includes email and backups for no additional charges. However, the host suffers from poor global TTFB and has no CDN.Â
It’s not an ideal choice for sites that rely on international traffic. Besides, the renewal price is expensive with $11.99 per month and is not an ideal host for users looking for budget plans. The host is also not ideal for heavy WordPress sites considering the poor WP Bench score of 5.5 out of 10.
The rebranding of A2 Hosting brings fresh infrastructure and while the Q4 2025 data looks promising, it’s too early to jump to real conclusions. For now, the performance looks reliable with a load handling of 43 ms and an uptime of 99.98% but it being the first data window on the new infrastructure, we will have to wait and watch as more data accumulates over time.
At a price point of $3.99 per month, the host matches the pricing of Bluehost and SiteGround and even outperforms both hosts on core metrics such as TTFB, Uptime, and Load handling. Even though InMotion is cheaper with an entry price of $2.99, it ranks lower with a rank of 24 out of 34 providers we tested. As we compared, Hostinger Business at $3.69 has the best overall package for this price point with CDN included.
Methodology
We purchased all hosting accounts we needed for our testing with our own funds. None of these accounts are promotional or free press accounts. The tools we use for testing comprises Pingdom for TTFB and Uptime, Loader.io for Load Testing, WPBenchmark for hardware, and SpeedVitals for global TTFB. We conduct over 525,600 tests per provider every year and monitor them every 60 seconds, 24/7. We test the performance of 34 providers in over 40 cities across America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Our scoring system comprises 60% on performance, 30% on features and 10% on value. The data period we referred to for writing this article is Q4 2025, from October 1 to December 31. We have historical data limited to Q4 2025 since A2 Hosting has been recently rebranded to Hosting.com with a completely new infrastructure. We use a standardized test environment for testing using WordPress with the Twenty Twenty-Four theme on and identical plugins.
Mohan Raj is the founder of Hostingstep.com, where he oversees the independent testing of 25+ web hosting providers. He conducts 525,600+ performance tests per year across 60+ global locations to measure TTFB speed, uptime, load test, core web vitals, and hardware benchmarks. Each provider is tested using independently purchased hosting accounts, backed by verifiable data.