Hostingstep is supported by its readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Bluehost Review Summary

Bluehost is not an excellent but decent choice of web hosting to get started. Based on our test, the Bluehost site showed good performance and a free domain name is an excellent cost-saver for beginners. Compared to last year’s test data, Bluehost has truly improved its TTFB and uptime. Their Global TTFB is not the best, but still, a clear improvement is seen, and it competes with many new-age hosting services now.

Overall Rating:
2.5 / 5

Bluehost Pros

  • Improved performance in recent tests.
  • Neat Control Panel.
  • Decent Customer support.
  • Affordable pricing to get started.

Bluehost Cons

  • Load Handling is poor.
  • Backups and security are upsold and do not come in regular plans.

Starts at $2.95/month

Bluehost Performance

Server Response Time

The Bluehost TTFB server response time is 409 ms, as recorded through our Pingdom tool. This is a decent server response time and better than HostGator, which is also part of the same EIG hosting.


The Bluehost uptime is recorded at 99.95%, a below-average score among other hosting providers we’ve tested.

Load Testing

I performed Load Testing on my Bluehost site by sending 500 concurrent traffic, and the site recorded an average response time of 438 ms.

The test failed at midway with many time out and 500 errors. The server handled the load for first 30 seconds but later failed.

Global TTFB

Bluehost test site recorded an average TTFB of 597 ms.

Core Web Vitals

I have been consistently testing the Core Web Vitals of my Bluehost site. According to the last test results, my site recorded a ‘Largest Contentful Paint’ of 461 ms, a ‘Total Blocking Time’ of 0 ms, and a ‘Cumulative Layout Shift:’ of 0.07.

Going by the results, Bluehost may not have the best Core Web Vitals, but again it’s not even that bad, and with a bit of effort, sites can deliver a brilliant user experience to their visitors.