SiteGround is discontinuing their services in some regions, like India, and giving a time frame of 30 days to transfer the site to new hosts. In this uncertain time, finding a new host is unbearably hard with a large number of available options.
Don’t panic, and I’m here to help you make data-backed decisions in finding your newest host. First, you don’t feel bad for moving out of SiteGround as they’re not the fastest host in the industry. We have over 6 years of continuous monitoring to prove this point, and our latest 10-month data shows they’re slow and don’t bring the value for money.
To find the best hosting to move away from SiteGround, we’ve ranked 29 providers on the last 10 months of data, from October 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026. Every figure on this page comes from our own monitoring, and you can check the window, the weighting and the test count before you read a single recommendation.
Data window: October 1, 2025 – July 31, 2026 (304 days) · 437,760 uptime and response-time tests per host · Pingdom at 60-second intervals
Scoring: Performance 80% · Value 20%. TTFB-US 22%, Uptime 22%, Load Test 18%, Global TTFB 13%, Server Hardware 5%. Full methodology
Author: Mohan Raj · Last updated: August 19, 2026
Disclosure: some links on this page are affiliate links. We earn a commission if you buy through them. It costs you nothing extra, and it does not affect the rankings — every position on this page is set by the measured data below, not by commission rate.
How much slower SiteGround got, month by month
Before picking a replacement, it helps to see exactly what you are leaving. SiteGround averaged 751ms response time across our 10-month window — the second-slowest figure of the 29 hosts we rank, and a Poor tier result under our scoring bands. More importantly, it did not stay flat. It climbed.
SiteGround average response time by month, October 1, 2025 – July 31, 2026. Measured on our own WordPress test site at 60-second intervals. Powered by Hostingstep.com
| Month | Avg response time | Uptime | Outages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2025 | 661ms | 99.93% | 6 |
| Nov 2025 | 619ms | 99.99% | 2 |
| Dec 2025 | 612ms | 99.99% | 2 |
| Jan 2026 | 718ms | 99.99% | 3 |
| Feb 2026 | 804ms | 99.98% | 5 |
| Mar 2026 | 779ms | 99.99% | 1 |
| Apr 2026 | 859ms | 99.95% | 5 |
| May 2026 | 913ms | 99.89% | 5 |
| Jun 2026 | 873ms | 99.99% | 1 |
| Jul 2026 | 683ms | 99.97% | 5 |
Window totals: 751ms average · 99.97% uptime · 35 outages · 1h 59m total downtime.
Response time rose from 661ms in October 2025 to a peak of 913ms in May 2026 — a 38% degradation over eight months — before recovering to 683ms in July. Uptime held up reasonably at 99.97%, so this is not a reliability story. It is a speed story, and the trend line is the reason this post exists.
The number that matters if your visitors are in India
Server response time measured from the US only tells part of the story. We also measure Time to First Byte from 40 locations worldwide using warm-cache tests. SiteGround’s global average is 1,200ms. From Mumbai it is 1,300ms. From Delhi it is 3,900ms.
Nearly four seconds to first byte from Delhi. That is before a single stylesheet, script or image has started downloading. For a site serving Indian readers, this one figure justifies the move on its own — regardless of the discontinuation notice.
How we scored 29 WordPress hosts
If you are new to Hostingstep, we conduct 24/7, 365 days performance monitoring of all major hosting providers using our test bench methodology. We bring proprietary data that is not available anywhere on the internet.
All the performance scores are obtained from our identical WordPress sites hosted on each of the popular hosting providers. The tests are done on the entry-level plan from each provider. The overall score combines five measured metrics with a pricing component:
Those five make up the 80% performance component. The remaining 20% is value, scored on introductory monthly price in bands. We have given maximum weightage to the metrics that decide whether a site feels fast — TTFB, uptime and load handling — and minimal weightage to Global TTFB and hardware.
WordPress hosting performance ranked, October 2025 – July 2026
Elite 8.50+ Strong 7.50–8.49 Average 6.00–7.49 Below average 4.50–5.99 Poor <4.50
| Rank | Host | Price | TTFB | Uptime | Load test | Global TTFB | Hardware | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WordPress.com | $2.75/mo | 312ms | 100% | 16ms | 69ms | 6.8 | 9.73 |
| 2 | Bluehost | $1.99/mo | 427ms | 99.9915% | 41ms | 224ms | 9.6 | 8.94 |
| 3 | GreenGeeks | $2.95/mo | 412ms | 99.9394% | 26ms | 386ms | 5.0 | 8.13 |
| 4 | Hostinger Business | $3.69/mo | 432ms | 99.9915% | 31ms | 351ms | 7.4 | 8.10 |
| 5 | HostArmada | $1.99/mo | 431ms | 99.9562% | 32ms | 402ms | 5.1 | 8.05 |
| 6 | Hostinger Premium | $2.69/mo | 443ms | 99.9894% | 245ms | 404ms | 7.4 | 8.01 |
| 7 | Pressable | $20.83/mo | 320ms | 100% | 12ms | 74ms | 6.7 | 7.92 |
| 8 | DreamHost | $2.89/mo | 473ms | 99.9595% | 147ms | 385ms | 6.1 | 7.83 |
| 9 | WP Engine | $27.00/mo | 360ms | 99.9933% | 27ms | 65ms | 6.5 | 7.80 |
| 10 | FastComet | $1.99/mo | 494ms | 99.9510% | 78ms | 387ms | 4.8 | 7.67 |
| 11 | InMotionHosting | $4.79/mo | 522ms | 99.9818% | 31ms | 390ms | 7.4 | 7.62 |
| 12 | Hosting.com formerly A2 Hosting | $2.99/mo | 486ms | 99.9682% | 43ms | 642ms | 5.5 | 7.60 |
| 13 | HostGator | $3.75/mo | 491ms | 99.9815% | 213ms | 427ms | 9.6 | 7.26 |
| 14 | Liquid Web Managed WordPress | $10.00/mo | 484ms | 99.9718% | 60ms | 349ms | 7.2 | 7.17 |
| 15 | ScalaHosting Entry Cloud | $12.71/mo | 464ms | 99.9973% | 48ms | 442ms | 8.8 | 7.12 |
| 16 | Kinsta | $30.00/mo | 426ms | 99.9866% | 20ms | 477ms | 8.8 | 7.08 |
| 17 | WPX Hosting | $14.99/mo | 463ms | 99.9949% | 45ms | 240ms | 6.5 | 7.05 |
| 18 | ScalaHosting Shared | $2.95/mo | 505ms | 99.8358% | 48ms | 442ms | 8.8 | 6.77 |
| 19 | Cloudways Linode | $14.00/mo | 422ms | 99.9913% | 310ms | 394ms | 7.2 | 6.45 |
| 20 | Cloudways Vultr HF | $16.00/mo | 428ms | 99.9986% | 291ms | 395ms | 7.6 | 6.43 |
| 21 | Cloudways Standard | $11.00/mo | 442ms | 99.9983% | 282ms | 386ms | 4.7 | 6.28 |
| 22 | NameHero | $2.24/mo | 448ms | 99.8829% | 257ms | 448ms | 3.7 | 6.23 |
| 23 | Cloudways Premium | $14.00/mo | 441ms | 99.9962% | 272ms | 403ms | 4.9 | 6.14 |
| 24 | Interserver | $2.50/mo | 459ms | 99.7659% | 80ms | 789ms | 5.3 | 6.05 |
| 25 | Cloudways Vultr | $14.00/mo | 417ms | 99.9967% | 531ms | 391ms | 4.3 | 6.02 |
| 26 | Rocket.net | $25.00/mo | 341ms | 99.9746% | Blocked | 66ms | 7.5 | 5.85 |
| 27 | SiteGround the host you are leaving | $3.99/mo | 751ms | 99.9727% | 170ms | 1200ms | 8.4 | 5.81 |
| 28 | ChemiCloud | $2.49/mo | 522ms | 99.8065% | 1068ms | 460ms | 6.1 | 5.60 |
| 29 | Ionos | $4.00/mo | 525ms | 99.9410% | Failed | 480ms | 7.2 | 5.47 |
Data: Oct 1, 2025 – Jul 31, 2026 · 29 providers · 437,760 tests per host. Global TTFB is the warm-cache average across 40 locations. Blocked means the host’s firewall rejected our stress test; Failed means the test exceeded our error threshold.
SiteGround finishes 27th of 29. It lags on every measured metric except server hardware, where its 8.4 WPBench score remains genuinely good — the allocated CPU and RAM are fine, the delivery is not. Since there are 26 better-performing hosts, I’ve handpicked a shortlist for each budget below.
Best SiteGround alternatives under $3 per month
These three take the top three positions on the full ranking, and all of them cost less than SiteGround’s $3.99 introductory price. All offer free WordPress migration.
WordPress.com
Fastest and most reliable host on the board, at a shared-hosting price
Bluehost
Best value after its January 2026 move to Oracle Cloud
GreenGeeks
Strong response times, but the weakest uptime of the three
On renewal pricing: we publish a renewal figure only where two of our own sources agree on it. WordPress.com renews at the same $2.75 and SiteGround at $17.99, both confirmed. Bluehost and GreenGeeks currently carry conflicting renewal figures across our pages, so we show “See host” rather than print a number we cannot stand behind — check our hosting deals page for the current rate before you buy.
For comparison, here is the same scorecard for the host you are leaving.
SiteGround
Shown for comparison, not as a recommendation
Best SiteGround alternatives between $10 and $15 per month
If you have outgrown shared hosting, these three are the highest-scoring options in the $10–$15 band. All three beat SiteGround on response time, uptime and load handling.
Liquid Web Managed WordPress
Published as Nexcess until 2026 — same monitored endpoint
ScalaHosting Entry Cloud
Highest uptime of any host we monitor, on a shorter 106-day window
WPX Hosting
Its own CDN makes it the fastest mid-range option for Indian visitors
One caveat on ScalaHosting Entry Cloud: we have 106 days of data on it against 304 days for every other host on this page, because monitoring started later. Its figures are real, but they cover a shorter window and have not been exposed to the same months. We have no warm-cache global TTFB test for the Entry Cloud endpoint specifically — the 442ms figure comes from the shared ScalaHosting test.
Best premium managed WordPress alternatives
For business-critical sites, these three deliver the strongest measured performance on the board. Pressable and WP Engine post the two best global TTFB figures of any host we monitor.
Pressable
Zero outages across the full 304-day window
WP Engine
Best global TTFB we measured — 65ms across 40 locations
Kinsta
Strong hardware and load handling, but slow from India
Which SiteGround alternative is fastest in India?
Most hosting comparisons answer this by listing which countries a provider has data centres in. That is the wrong test, for two reasons. A site’s files live on one server — multiple data centres are a choice you make at signup, not replication across locations. And a data centre in Mumbai tells you nothing about how fast the host actually delivers, because caching and CDN configuration matter more than distance.
So we measured it instead. Below is warm-cache Time to First Byte from Mumbai, Delhi and Singapore for every host recommended on this page, tested April 17, 2026 across our standard 40-location panel.
| Host | Overall score | Mumbai | Delhi | Singapore | Global avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP Engine | 7.80 | 132ms | 38ms | 48ms | 65ms |
| Pressable | 7.92 | 31ms | 79ms | 23ms | 74ms |
| WPX Hosting | 7.05 | 29ms | 81ms | 29ms | 240ms |
| WordPress.com | 9.73 | 29ms | 99ms | 28ms | 69ms |
| Bluehost | 8.94 | 314ms | 308ms | 331ms | 224ms |
| Liquid Web Managed WordPress | 7.17 | 414ms | 416ms | 325ms | 349ms |
| GreenGeeks | 8.13 | 799ms | 828ms | 624ms | 386ms |
| HostArmada | 8.05 | 793ms | 829ms | 615ms | 402ms |
| Kinsta | 7.08 | 1000ms | 859ms | 717ms | 477ms |
| Hostinger Business | 8.10 | 812ms | 1400ms | 228ms | 351ms |
| SiteGround | 5.81 | 1300ms | 3900ms | 1000ms | 1200ms |
Sorted by Delhi TTFB. Warm-cache SpeedVitals test, 40 locations. Powered by Hostingstep.com
Four hosts deliver first byte to Delhi in under 100ms: WP Engine (38ms), Pressable (79ms), WPX (81ms) and WordPress.com (99ms). All four run their own edge network, which is what actually closes the distance — not a Mumbai data centre.
Two results are worth flagging because they cut against the overall ranking. Kinsta scores 7.08 overall but returns 859ms from Delhi and 1,000ms from Mumbai, making it a poor fit for an Indian audience despite its strong hardware and load handling. Hostinger Business ranks 4th overall at 8.10, yet its Delhi figure is 1,400ms — its Singapore result of 228ms is excellent, so the Indian result is a routing problem, not a capacity one.
If your traffic is mostly Indian, pick from the top of this table rather than the top of the overall ranking. The two orders are not the same, and this is the table that answers your question.
Hosts we removed from our previous recommendations
This post previously recommended four hosts that no longer make the list. Naming them and saying why is part of keeping the data honest.
- A2 Hosting is now Hosting.com. Same monitored endpoint, new brand. It ranks 12th at 7.60 with 486ms response time, 53 outages and a 977ms warm-cache global TTFB. Still a reasonable host, no longer a top-three pick.
- Rocket.net drops to 26th at 5.85. Its response time is excellent at 341ms, but its firewall blocked our stress test entirely, so it scores zero on the 18% load-testing component. We report that as Blocked rather than Failed, because we could not measure it — not because it performed badly.
- Templ.io is no longer in the ranking. Our monitoring shows 354ms and 99.99% uptime, but only 274 days of the 304-day window. It does not have the same exposure as the ranked hosts, so it is excluded rather than compared unequally.
- Nexcess is published as Liquid Web Managed WordPress. The same product, under the name it now ships under. It is the #1 mid-range pick above.
Why we picked these alternatives
We have handpicked the above alternatives based on real-world data. They offer significantly better performance at much lower prices. With SiteGround’s 30-day shut down notice, it’s critical to migrate quickly. These hosts all offer free migration services, making the transition seamless. The performance improvement will be immediately noticeable — your website will load faster, handle traffic better, and provide a smoother experience for your visitors globally.
Measured against SiteGround, every host recommended above delivers:
- Faster server response times: between 267ms and 439ms faster than SiteGround’s 751ms average
- Better reliability: WordPress.com and Pressable recorded zero outages across the full 304 days, against SiteGround’s 35
- Superior load handling: every pick returns at or under 60ms with 100 concurrent users, against SiteGround’s 170ms
- Global speed advantage: SiteGround’s warm-cache global TTFB of 1,200ms is slower than every host on this page, by a factor of up to 18
- Free migration services: all offer free WordPress site migrations for a faster transition
On price, SiteGround renews at $17.99/month. WordPress.com is the only host on this page that does not raise its price at renewal — you keep paying the $2.75 you signed up at, and it is the fastest host we measured. The others all renew above their introductory rate, as most hosts do, so check the current figure with the host before you commit.
