{"id":1655,"date":"2016-10-27T09:29:33","date_gmt":"2016-10-27T13:29:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/?p=1655"},"modified":"2016-11-01T12:33:30","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T16:33:30","slug":"kinsta-wordpress-hosting-review-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/2016\/10\/27\/kinsta-wordpress-hosting-review-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"Kinsta WordPress Hosting Review (2016)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kinsta<\/a> participated for the third year in a row in WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks<\/a>. They had four plans entered into the following ranges: $51-100\/month, $101-200\/m, $201-500\/m, Enterprise ($500+\/m).<\/p>\n

One of the smaller companies in the space, they are focused on the high end segment of the market with their cheapest plan starting at $100\/month. Their infrastructure is entirely hosted on Google's cloud hosting. They appear to be laser focused on catering to clients that really demand top notch performance and are willing to pay for it.<\/p>\n

Products<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Company \/Price Bracket<\/td>\nPlan Name<\/td>\nMonthly Price<\/td>\nVisitors Allowed<\/td>\nDisk Space<\/td>\nBandwidth<\/td>\nSites Allowed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $51-100<\/td>\nBusiness 1<\/td>\n$100<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n5GB SSD<\/td>\n50GB<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $101-200<\/td>\nBusiness 2<\/td>\n$200<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n20GB SSD<\/td>\n100GB<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $201-500<\/td>\nBusiness 4<\/td>\n$400<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n40GB SSD<\/td>\n400GB<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta Enterprise<\/td>\nEnterprise 4<\/td>\n$1,500<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n200GB SSD<\/td>\n1.5TB<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

View Full Product Details<\/a><\/p>\n

Performance Review<\/h2>\n

LoadStorm Results<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTotal Requests<\/td>\nTotal Errors<\/td>\nPeak RPS<\/td>\nAverage RPS<\/td>\nPeak Response Time(ms)<\/td>\nAverage Response Time(ms)<\/td>\nTotal Data Transferred (GB)<\/td>\nPeak Throughput (MB\/s)<\/td>\nAverage Throughput (MB\/s)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $51-100<\/a><\/td>\n416335<\/td>\n544<\/td>\n324.57<\/td>\n231.3<\/td>\n15059<\/td>\n317<\/td>\n24.01<\/td>\n19.91<\/td>\n13.34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $101-200<\/a><\/td>\n546252<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n425.67<\/td>\n303.47<\/td>\n9078<\/td>\n286<\/td>\n31.47<\/td>\n24.95<\/td>\n17.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $201-500<\/a><\/td>\n671665<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n528.38<\/td>\n373.15<\/td>\n9991<\/td>\n285<\/td>\n38.68<\/td>\n31.73<\/td>\n21.49<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta Enterprise<\/a><\/td>\n1314178<\/td>\n274<\/td>\n1041.28<\/td>\n730.1<\/td>\n15014<\/td>\n340<\/td>\n75.7<\/td>\n60.75<\/td>\n42.06<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

These results are impressive. The worst issue was in the 51-100 range there was a tiny amount of errors towards the end of the test, resulting in a minuscule 0.13%\u00a0error rate. As the tests scaled up from 2,000 to 10,000 users, Kinsta<\/a> scaled well across price tiers and performed in the top tier of each price bracket.<\/p>\n

Blitz Results<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nHits<\/td>\nErrors<\/td>\nTimeouts<\/td>\nAverage Hits\/Second<\/td>\nAverage Response Time<\/td>\nFastest Response<\/td>\nSlowest Response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $51-100<\/td>\n54273<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n905<\/td>\n84<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $101-200<\/td>\n81397<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1357<\/td>\n84<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta $201-500<\/td>\n81386<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1356<\/td>\n84<\/td>\n84<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta Enterprise<\/td>\n135485<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2258<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The Blitz test is designed to make sure that static assets (which should be served from cache) are being handled properly and can scale to very heavy big spikes in traffic. Kinsta<\/a> had 2ms response time spreads max and virtually no errors across every plan. It was incredibly stable and handled this test flawlessly at every price tier.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Uptime<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nStatusCake<\/td>\nUptimeRobot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta 51-100<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta 101-200<\/td>\n99.98<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kinsta 201-500<\/td>\n99.98<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Kinsta<\/a> was nearly flawless on both monitors with a minimum 99.98% observed uptime. Uptime wasn't tracked on most Enterprise level plans because they are just so expensive that it felt wasteful to run them for a long period doing nothing but monitoring uptime if the company had other plans in the testing which could also be measured.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WebPageTest \/ WPPerformanceTester<\/h3>\n

I mention these because they are in the full testing but I won't bother putting them here. No company had any significant issue with either and it's not worth writing about. If you're very interested in seeing the geographical response times on WPT<\/a> or what the raw computing power test of WPPerformanceTester<\/a> measured, read the full results<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Kinsta<\/a> put on another marvelous performance across every single price bracket. For the third year in a row they earned Review Signal's Top Tier WordPress Hosting Performance award. Since I don't have the graphical talent in house, I'm going to shamelessly steal one of their graphics which pretty much sums it all up.<\/p>\n

\"top-tier-wordpress-hosting-performance\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kinsta participated for the third year in a row in WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks. They had four plans entered into the following ranges: $51-100\/month, $101-200\/m, $201-500\/m, Enterprise ($500+\/m). One of the smaller companies in the space, they are focused on the high end segment of the market with their cheapest plan starting at $100\/month. Their […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1663,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,199],"tags":[157,135,74,4,48],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1655"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1655"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1655\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1718,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1655\/revisions\/1718"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1663"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}