EasyWP Review 2026 – Nothing Good Except Support!
EasyWP scored an overall score of 5.33 out of 10 and secured a rank of 32 out of 34 providers we tested. The host recorded a TTFB of 490 ms and an impressive uptime of 100%. However, the Load Test failed with 56.80% errors. We monitored the host’s performance over 182 days, conducting more than 52,416 tests. EasyWP, a NameCheap product, is now PE owned by CVC Capital Partners since Sept 2025. EasyWP is available at an intro price of $4.07/mo yearly, and a renewal ~$5.74/mo yearly.
The performance story of EasyWP revolves around its strongest metric, 100% uptime and its weakest metric, a failed Load test with a score of 0 out of 10. In this article, we will look into its global TTFB, server hardware, pricing and most importantly, see who should choose it and who should avoid it.
Pros:
- Support is available 24/7 and helps you instantly with anything related to their platform.
Cons:
- The starter plan lacks free SSL (a significant drawback). Despite Google making SSL mandatory and almost all web hosts providing it, EasyWP doesn’t offer it on the starter plan, making it unusable. (now they started including SSL)
- No Automatic backups. This is one of the biggest redmark of EasyWP. If the site goes down for any issue, website owner has no way to restore the site, unless the owner took manual backup earlier. If there is no backup taken, the site is gone forever with no way to recover. In this scenario, how does EasyWP can be a “Managed WordPress Hosting” as website owner takes care of backups on their own!
- Configuring CDN and domain with EasyWP is not beginner-friendly, even harder for experienced person like me. If you have domains at NameCheap, the configurations is slightly better. However, if you have got domain on other providers, you will have a hard time configuring your domain and activating CDN.
Performance Overview
| Metric | Result | Score | Weight | Tier Ref |
| TTFB (US) | 490ms | 7 / 10 | 15% | 450–500ms = 7 |
| Uptime | 100.00% | 10 / 10 | 15% | 100% = 10 |
| Load Test | FAILED | 0 / 10 | 15% | 56.80% errors |
| Global TTFB | 645ms | 6 / 10 | 10% | 550–650ms = 6 |
| WPBench (Hardware) | 6.7/10 | 6.7 / 10 | 5% | Direct score |
| Performance Total | 3.48 | — | 60% | Below Average |
EasyWP secured an overall score of 3.48 out of 34 providers we tested. While the median score is 4.3, EasyWP is 19% below the median. Hosts like NameHero, GoDaddy Shared, and ChemiCloud scored below average with 2.59, 2.56, and 3.08 respectively. However, the fact that EasyWP had a failed Load test is the biggest drag on the score.Â
TTFB Response Time
| Year | Days | Avg TTFB | Uptime | Outages | Downtime |
| 2025 | 182 | 488ms | 99.97% | 3 | 86 min |
| 2026 (Jan) | 18 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
We started our EasyWP monitoring in mid 2025, which is why we don’t have multi year data. EasyWP recorded a TTFB of 490 ms in 2025 Q4, scoring 7 out of 10 among the 34 providers. However, the TTFB is 488 ms based on 182 days of Pingdom monitoring. While the Median is 465, EasyWP’s TTFB is slightly above the Median. A 490 ms TTFB is in the middle of raw TTFB and is neither terrible nor impressive. The actual problem is about a single request speed but about how it handles load.
Uptime
EasyWP recorded an uptime of 100% in Q4 2025 and this is one genuine strength of EasyWP. While the 2025 Q4 data shows a perfect uptime, the full picture is that the host recorded an uptime of 99.97% with 3 outages amounting to a total of 86 minutes downtime over 182 days in 2025. The worst single day uptime in 2025 was 95.56%. EasyWP comes with 99.9% SLA with 99.99% on Supersonic plan only.
Load Handling
When conducting the Load test, we use Loader.io to send 100 concurrent requests in 60 seconds to our test site to measure the average response time and the error rate during load handling. EasyWP failed the load test with a 56.80% error rate. More than half of the requests returned errors under the load. According to our methodology, any error rate beyond 50% is automatically taken as a failed test.
The possible cause stems out of the Starter plan’s resource limitations as it comes with a RAM of just 512 MB. Higher tier plans may perform differently but we test the entry level plan alone since most users choose entry level plans. For viral blogs and ecommerce sites with high traffic spikes from time to time, choosing EasyWP is like losing more than half of your visitors as they will see errors instead of your content.
Server Hardware TestÂ
WPBench tests the raw non-cached server resources like CPU, RAM, and disk I/O of a host. EasyWP scored 6.7 reflecting an average to low hardware allocation. Bluehost dominates the metric with 9.6, while NameHero is the worst performer with 3.7. While the Median is 6.5, EasyWP is slightly above the Median.
The Starter plan comes with a RAM of 512 MB, which is the lowest among all providers we tested so far. It’s important to understand that WPBench measures the raw server capability alone independent of web server software quality.
Global TTFB
| Region | Avg TTFB | Best City | Worst City |
| Americas | 318ms | Los Angeles: 115ms | São Paulo: 546ms |
| Europe | 557ms | London: 465ms | Sweden: 724ms |
| Asia-Pacific | ~900ms+ | Tel Aviv: 574ms | Delhi: 1.3 sec |
| Global Average | 645ms | — | — |
EasyWP recorded an average of 645 ms in the Global TTFB test with a score of 6 out 10, revealing an extremely poor global performance. The host recorded an average of 318 ms, which should be manageable for sites with a US focused audience. The best average was seen in Los Angeles with 115 ms while the worst in Sao Paulo with 546 ms.
However, the average response time for Europe was 557 and that of Asia Pacific exceeded 900 ms. In some Asia Pacific cities it even exceeded 1 second. For example, the average went up to 1.3 seconds for Delhi. Besides, EasyWP uses static CDN instead of edge caching, which clearly reflects its primary goal to serve sites with a US based audience. Sites that have global audiences should consider alternatives like WP Engine with a global TTFB of 169 ms or Hostinger Business with a global TTFB of 222 ms.Â
EasyWP vs Competitors
| Metric | EasyWP | Hostinger Business | NameCheap | SiteGround | WP Engine |
| Rank | #32 | #5 | #18 | #22 | #6 |
| Score | 5.33 | 8.02 | 6.65 | 6.50 | 7.98 |
| TTFB (US) | 490ms | 472ms | 462ms | 632ms | 367ms |
| Uptime | 100% | 99.98% | 99.98% | 99.97% | 100% |
| Load Test | FAILED | 245ms | 150ms | 170ms | 27ms |
| Global TTFB | 645ms | 495ms | 574ms | 833ms | 169ms |
| WPBench | 6.7 | 7.4 | 5.0 | 8.4 | 7.5 |
| CDN | Static | Edge | None | Edge | Edge |
| None | Free | Free | Free | None | |
| Auto Backups | None | Daily | Yes | Daily | Daily |
| Sites Included | 1 | 100 | 3+ | 1 | 1 |
| Intro Price | ~$4.07/mo | $3.69/mo | $1.98/mo | $3.99/mo | $23/mo |
| Renewal Price | ~$5.74/mo | ~$7.99/mo | ~$4.48/mo | ~$17.99/mo | $23/mo |
| Tier | Below Avg | Average | Average | Below Avg | Elite |
EasyWP vs Hostinger Business
Hostinger Business is the clear winner in almost all metrics. Hostinger Business comes with better features such as 100 sites support, free email, daily backups, and edge CDN, securing a better overall score than EasyWP with 8.02 vs 5.33.The only metrics where EasyWP wins in Uptime with 100% vs 99.98%.
EasyWP vs NameCheap Shared
Even though both EasyWP and NameCheap belong to the same parent company, NameCheap shared hosting outperforms EasyWP. NameCheap offers comparatively more affordable pricing with $1.98 vs $4.07, and more sites with 3+ vs 1, NameCheap includes email and automatic backups unlike EasyWP. Most importantly, NameCheap passed the Load Test with a response time of 159 ms while EasyWP failed in the Load Test.
EasyWP vs SiteGround
As we compare EasyWP with SiteGround, SiteGround, too, struggles with a poor TTFB of 632 ms and a poor global TTFB of 833 ms, ranking below the average tier. However, unlike EasyWP, SiteGround passed the load test with 170 ms. Besides, SiteGround comes with email, daily backups and edge CDN while EasyWP offers none of these. However, the renewal is way higher in SiteGround than EasyWP with $17.99 vs $5.74. So, it’s a mixed comparison.
EasyWP vs WP Engine
WP Engine belongs to the premium category.The host costs 5.6x more than EasyWP with $23 per month vs $4.07 per month. WP Engine delivers elite tier performance with a TTFB of 367 ms, a load handling of 27 ms, and a global TTFB of 169 ms. The host beats EasyWP in all performance metrics. Besides, WP Engine offers daily auto backups, and enterprise features. Mission critical sites will benefit a lot and WP Engine truly justifies its Premium pricing.
Who Should Use EasyWP
First time users looking for a simple setup may find EasyWP an ideal option to go with. EasyWP comes with a 90 second WordPress installation. Besides, the custom dashboard is pretty clean with no cPanel complexity, which will genuinely be easy to use for beginners.
EasyWP should work fine for Personal blogs with a US based audience and low traffic since a TTFB of 490 ms and 100% uptime is adequate for small blogs under 1000 month visitors. Anything beyond 1000 monthly visitors can become a concern as the host has failed terribly in the load test.
Existing NameCheap domain customers looking for a one click integration can benefit from using EasyWP. EasyWP’s dashboard seamlessly connects the domain to the host.
Who Shouldn’t Use EasyWP
Sites that expect traffic spikes or growth need to avoid EasyWP since the host failed in the load test with 56.80% errors. It includes marketing campaign sites, product launch or viral blogs. Sites using EasyWP during a traffic spike will simply collapse. Such sites need to go with better alternatives like Hostinger Business with a load handling of 245 ms for $3.69 per month.
EasyWP is a big no for sites with global audiences as the host recorded a global TTFB of 645 ms with the TTFB exceeding 900 ms in Asia Pacific. The TTFB exceeded even 1 second in some Asia Pacific sites indicating sluggish page loading. Such sites need to opt for better hosts like WP Engine with a global TTFB of 169 ms or Hostinger with a global TTFB of 222 ms.
EasyWP is not an ideal host for users that need email hosting included since the host doesn’t offer one. To use an email with EasyWP, users will need a separate NameCheap Business Email subscription or a third party email. Hostinger, NameCheap shared and SiteGround are better alternatives as they offer email hosting with the plan for no extra charges.
Users looking for automatic backups should avoid EasyWP since the host offers manual only backups. If you forget to backup your site manually, you can lose your entire site if it ever fails since there is no restore point. For automatic backup, you can choose alternatives like NameCheap, Hostinger Business or SiteGround as they all come with automatic backup.
Our Verdict
EasyWP has an overall score of 5.33 out of 10, ranking 32 out of 34 in our 2026 rankings. We recommend EasyWP only for absolute beginners with a small US audience based blog with monthly traffic under 1000. We don’t recommend EasyWP for sites that expect traffic spikes and need email and automated backups. We don’t recommend EasyWP for sites that rely on global traffic.
The best alternatives include Hostinger Business with an overall score of 8.02 out of 10, and a rank of 5 out of 34 for $3.69 per month. Hostinger Business addresses every weakness we spotted in EasyWP. If you are already a NameCheap customer, you can go with their shared hosting for $1.98 per month. The host scored 6.65 out of 10, ranking 18 out of 34 providers we tested. NameCheap shared hosting outperforms EasyWP in all aspects in spite of costing half of its price.
EasyWP is available at a promotional price of $4.07 per month and a renewal of $5.74 power month. However, the price has increased since August 2025 as the Starter monthly went up from $3.88 to $9.88. To write this review, we conducted over 52,416 tests over a period of 182 days using tools comprising Pingdom, GTmetrix, Loader,io, WPBenchmark and SpeedVitals.
Methodology
We purchased the EasyWP Starter plan with our own funds which cost us $48.88 per year. We used tools such as Pingdom for TTFB and Uptime, GTmetrix for performance, Loader.io for load testing, WPBenchmark for measuring the server hardware performance, and SpeedVitals for global TTFB across 40+ cities. We tested a total of 34 hosts every minute for 24/7 conducting over 525600 tests per provider per year.
We monitored EasyWP for 182 days. Our scoring method includes 60% on Performance, 30% on Features, and 10% on Value. Our last testing period was 2025 Q4 from October 1 to December 31. We added EasyWP to our monitoring in mid 2025 and that’s why the historical data is limited to 182 days. We have the historical data of over 3 to 5 years old for most other providers.
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.