{"id":1672,"date":"2016-10-31T07:21:52","date_gmt":"2016-10-31T11:21:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/?p=1672"},"modified":"2018-08-31T12:13:23","modified_gmt":"2018-08-31T16:13:23","slug":"lightningbase-wordpress-hosting-review-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/2016\/10\/31\/lightningbase-wordpress-hosting-review-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"LightningBase WordPress Hosting Review (2016)"},"content":{"rendered":"

LightningBase<\/a>\u00a0participated for the third year in a row in WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks<\/a>. They had three plans entered into the following ranges: <$25\/month, $25-50\/m, and $51-100\/month.<\/p>\n

LightningBase<\/a> is one of the most unspoken about companies in the space and I really don't know why. In the past two previous years of testing they earned top tier WordPress hosting performance awards. This year was no exception.<\/p>\n

Products<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Company \/ Price Bracket<\/td>\nPlan<\/td>\nMonthly Price<\/td>\nVisitors Allowed<\/td>\nDisk Space<\/td>\nBandwidth<\/td>\nSites Allowed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase <25<\/td>\nPersonal<\/td>\n$9.95<\/td>\nUnlimited. 10,000 suggested<\/td>\n1 GB<\/td>\n10 GB<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 25-50<\/td>\nMedium<\/td>\n$49.95<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n15 GB<\/td>\n100 GB<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 51-100<\/td>\nLarge<\/td>\n$99.95<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n30 GB<\/td>\n250 GB<\/td>\n25<\/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
Company \/ Price Bracket<\/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
LightningBase <25<\/a><\/td>\n314439<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n238.68<\/td>\n174.69<\/td>\n8989<\/td>\n255<\/td>\n16.24<\/td>\n13.24<\/td>\n9.023<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 25-50<\/a><\/td>\n315348<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n238.4<\/td>\n175.19<\/td>\n3567<\/td>\n272<\/td>\n16.34<\/td>\n13.47<\/td>\n9.077<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 51-100<\/a><\/td>\n456430<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n356.3<\/td>\n253.57<\/td>\n3909<\/td>\n261<\/td>\n23.65<\/td>\n19.41<\/td>\n13.14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

LoadStorm test logged in thousands of users to simulate heavy uncached load on the server, scaling up with more users on larger plans after the $25-50\/month range.\u00a0LightningBase<\/a> put on an absolute clinic here. No requests hitting the timeout (15,000ms), keeping a very quick average response time in the 200ms range and virtually no errors across all the plans including an actual zero in the largest test.<\/p>\n

Blitz Results<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Company \/ Price Bracket<\/td>\nHits<\/td>\nErrors<\/td>\nTimeouts<\/td>\nAverage Hits\/Second<\/td>\nAverage Response Time<\/td>\nFastest Response<\/td>\nSlowest Response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase <25<\/td>\n27488<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n458<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 25-50<\/td>\n27460<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n458<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 51-100<\/td>\n54946<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n916<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n73<\/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. If the LoadStorm test was a clinic, this was absolute perfection. LightningBase<\/a> had zero errors. Response times are nearly identical across every plan with a total of 3ms spread between all three plans.<\/p>\n

Uptime<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Company<\/td>\nStatusCake<\/td>\nUptimeRobot<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase <25<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 25-50<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LightningBase 51-100<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

LightningBase<\/a> was virtually perfect with 100% uptime on every plan and monitor except one which showed 99.99%.<\/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

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

LightningBase<\/a> easily earned their top tier performance award this year for the third consecutive time. Their results were consistently near (or actually) perfect. I still can't wrap my head around why nobody is talking about them, their performance is absolutely fantastic.<\/p>\n

\"lightning-base-logo\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LightningBase\u00a0participated for the third year in a row in WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks. They had three plans entered into the following ranges: <$25\/month, $25-50\/m, and $51-100\/month. LightningBase is one of the most unspoken about companies in the space and I really don’t know why. In the past two previous years of testing they earned top […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1673,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,199],"tags":[157,134,74,4,48],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672"}],"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=1672"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2176,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672\/revisions\/2176"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}