Bluehost vs. SiteGround – Which One Provides Best Hosting Service?

Choosing the right hosting service is considered as the nerve wracking experience because hosting can make or bear the website. One can spend hours doing research, spending time understanding the gibberish.

Bluehost vs. SiteGround

Bluehost vs SiteGround – Important Comparisons


Over 3 years it has been found that all types of winnings have been given to SiteGround as it contains lots of techniques and innovations that could not be found in Bluehost. There is a graph which shows the overall popularity in some years, SiteGround has been very effective and now it contains millions of users. Whereas BlueHost lags the list; Bluehost has had no net growth overall for 3 years as it does not satisfy all the needs.

Bluehost vs SiteGround – Speed Test

It is very important that web hosting must contain a well-equipped speed that makes lots of customers for that particular web hosting. There is also a Google ranking that comes up in speed, If speed is not good ranking will go down. More the speed more visitors in your web hosting application, Bluehost has fewer visitors than SiteGround as its speed is less than that of SiteGround. Both web hosting is almost done from the same place still servers and many functions are there that make an irregularity in some web hosting applications.

Hosting Speed at Different Locations:

It is inferred from the above tests on speed, SiteGround has a better loading time in the USA. However, there is a need to test the competencies of Bluehost and SiteGround over the world market.

LocationBluehost Load TimeSiteGround Load Time
Singapore6.6 seconds6.5 seconds
Amsterdam8.3 seconds3.2 seconds
New Delhi4.7 seconds1.9 seconds
Vancouver3.9 seconds2.3 seconds
Sydney3.2 seconds2.2 seconds
Newyork2.9 seconds1.7 seconds
London3.2 seconds1.7 seconds

Results from the test:

The above table shows that SiteGround has a better loading time than its counterpart. In every part of the globe, its load time is less than Bluehost. Its loading time is also low in India, one of the largest users of the internet. However, its loading time is very high compared to other countries. SiteGround can be loaded two times faster than Bluehost with loading time in the USA being the fastest of all. This can be inferred that Bluehost has comparatively good speed in the USA.

However, when compared to the world market, it is way behind SiteGround. According to Google, people show less patience regarding the loading of any webpage. If any webpage takes more than 3-4 seconds, people will surely leave that page. They will look for a web page with a quick loading time.

The above table shows that SiteGround got loaded much quicker than 3 seconds in seven of the eight countries. It proves that SiteGround is the champion regarding its speed and loading time. Their servers are extremely quick with more than 4 centers of data overall. The physical transfer of data decides the loading time of any web page. With these numbers of centers, loading time becomes quick.

The servers of SiteGround are situated in Singapore, Amsterdam, Milan, London, and Chicago. The main disadvantage of Bluehost is that it does not provide any information regarding its centers of data. It is however known that Bluehost has its centers in Shanghai, Mumbai, and parts of the USA like Utah, Orem, and Provo.

Changing the location of the server:

One of the major advantages of SiteGround is that it allows users to change the locations of their servers. It allows placing the files of web pages on servers that are near the targeted customers. It provides easy steps to change the locations of the servers throughout the whole day. In contrast to it, Bluehost does not allow any such change even when customers are making their first purchases.

The above tweet says it all for SiteGround and Bluehost. It can be inferred that choosing plans must be according to one’s pocket. If it is purchased as per the purchasing power, any web page hosting can be useful to customers from all domains.

The outcome of the speed test of Bluehost vs SiteGround

  • Only in Singapore SiteGround performance is low as there is load condition of web hosting is high
  • There is a place where Bluehost load time is very fast, that place is the US and their Siteground speed is lower than that of Bluehost
  • Looking into the average outcome of both the web hosting applications it is clear that Bluehost’s speed is lower than that of Siteground.

More people mainly wait 3 seconds on a page as there are 53% of the people do not have time for waiting as there are a lot of works done nowadays on the web. Bluehost has a special type of application that is it does not reveal its location as sometimes it shows different places sin in the world.

Backup & Restore:

There is always a backup for every application, it is a source where all the things are stored if there is an emergency purpose when everything gets deleted this place gives a better platform. Emergency caused due to lots of cybercrimes as well as malicious attack that is done to a website or application this backup is used again. For backup, a web hosting application always charges extra for it otherwise how will they make business?

Bluehost vs SiteGround: Price & Plans

On the website of a Siteground, it offers a free transferring process to their servers, It is a process that is done at a particular time within a time of 24 hours.

It can also be a nonworking day, costing which is made by web hosting is:

  • Bluehost: 149 Dollar
  • Siteground: Free

Bluehost vs SiteGround: Conclusion

SiteGround has always been the best choice overall in web hosting. SiteGround is a web hosting application in which speed matters. The support that is given by Siteground and all types of performances that are given by  Siteground are always better than Bluehost.

Must Read: Dreamhost Coupon – Save Flat 50% Off!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top