{"id":2180,"date":"2018-09-06T10:23:18","date_gmt":"2018-09-06T14:23:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/?p=2180"},"modified":"2018-10-02T14:26:35","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T18:26:35","slug":"pressable-review-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/2018\/09\/06\/pressable-review-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Pressable Review (2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pressable<\/a> participated for the third time in our WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks (2018)<\/a>. This review is based off the results of that test. Pressable participated in the following price brackets: <$25, $51-100, $101-200, $201-500, and Enterprise.<\/p>\n

In the previous test<\/a>, Pressable earned four Top Tier status out of 5. This year Pressable earned 5\/5 Top Tier awards.<\/p>\n

The Products<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Plan Name<\/td>\nPlan Monthly Price<\/td>\nPlan Visitors Allowed<\/td>\nPlan Disk Space<\/td>\nPlan Bandwidth<\/td>\n\n
\n
Plan Sites Allowed<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5 Sites<\/td>\n$25<\/td>\n60,000 pageviews<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20 Sites<\/td>\n$90<\/td>\n400,000 pageviews<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agency 1<\/td>\n$135<\/td>\n600,000 pageviews<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agency 3<\/td>\n$225<\/td>\n1,000,000 pageviews<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VIP 2<\/td>\n$750.00<\/td>\n5 million pageviews<\/td>\nunlimited<\/td>\nUnlimited<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Performance Review<\/h2>\n

Load Storm<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\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>\n\n
\n
Average Throughput (MB\/s)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<$25<\/td>\n330,412<\/td>\n487<\/td>\n249.85<\/td>\n183.56<\/td>\n10102<\/td>\n268<\/td>\n21.65<\/td>\n17.38<\/td>\n12.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$51-100<\/td>\n475,785<\/td>\n1,112<\/td>\n371.22<\/td>\n264.32<\/td>\n10,192<\/td>\n318<\/td>\n31.17<\/td>\n25.48<\/td>\n17.32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$101-200<\/td>\n622,516<\/td>\n1,555<\/td>\n490.82<\/td>\n345.84<\/td>\n15,063<\/td>\n320<\/td>\n40.76<\/td>\n32.76<\/td>\n22.65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$200-$500<\/td>\n766,477<\/td>\n2,603<\/td>\n610.07<\/td>\n425.82<\/td>\n15,273<\/td>\n355<\/td>\n49.98<\/td>\n40.48<\/td>\n27.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Enterprise<\/td>\n1,480,277<\/td>\n1,901<\/td>\n1,180.13<\/td>\n822.38<\/td>\n10,719<\/td>\n484<\/td>\n102.15<\/td>\n81.81<\/td>\n56.75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Sources:\u00a0<25<\/a>, 51-100<\/a>, 101-200<\/a>, 201-500<\/a>, Enterprise<\/a><\/p>\n

The Load Storm test is designed to simulate real users coming to the site, logging in and browsing the site bursting some of the caching mechanisms typically found on managed WordPress hosts.<\/p>\n

The error rates were a bit higher than before on Load Storm but they seemed to almost exclusively be an issue with the Tokyo testing location for Load Storm. There wasn't any other real noticeable impact, but it was a consistent minor issue in all the tests. The average response times were excellent and error rates were still under control given the Tokyo issue.<\/p>\n

Load Impact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nRequests<\/td>\nErrors<\/td>\nData Transferred (GB)<\/td>\nPeak Average Load Time (Seconds)<\/td>\nPeak Average Bandwidth (Mbps)<\/td>\n\n
\n
Peak Average Requests\/Sec<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<$25<\/td>\n326903<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n17.73<\/td>\n0.486<\/td>\n482.1<\/td>\n1060<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$51-100<\/td>\n656609<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n34.75<\/td>\n0.443<\/td>\n573<\/td>\n1260<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$101-200<\/td>\n979942<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n53.2<\/td>\n0.462<\/td>\n685<\/td>\n1900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$200-$500<\/td>\n977315<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n53.06<\/td>\n0.475<\/td>\n831<\/td>\n1820<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Enterprise<\/td>\n1389420<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n77.63<\/td>\n0.773<\/td>\n1150<\/td>\n2520<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Sources: <25<\/a>, 51-100<\/a>, 101-200<\/a>, 201-500<\/a>, Enterprise<\/a><\/p>\n

The Load Impact test makes sure static caching is effective so that if a page gets a lot of traffic the site will keep responding without issue.<\/p>\n

Pressable across the board did fantastic. The enterprise level even managed a perfect run without any errors.<\/p>\n

Uptime<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nUptimeRobot<\/td>\nStatusCake<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<$25\/month<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$51-100\/month<\/td>\n99.94<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$101-200\/month<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$200-$500\/month<\/td>\n99.93<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Enterprise<\/td>\n99.98<\/td>\n99.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Overall every plan maintained above 99.9%. I'd like to see it closes to 100 than 99.9 given their past issue was uptime in the previous test, but overall they improved this year keeping every plan above 99.9% which is great.<\/p>\n

WebPageTest \/ WPPerformanceTester<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nPHP Bench<\/td>\nWP Bench<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<$25\/month<\/td>\n10.87<\/td>\n562.7462015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$51-100\/month<\/td>\n10.998<\/td>\n556.7928731<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$101-200\/month<\/td>\n10.803<\/td>\n471.6981132<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$200-$500\/month<\/td>\n10.797<\/td>\n540.8328826<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Enterprise<\/td>\n10.924<\/td>\n529.1005291<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The WPPerformanceTester<\/a> results were pretty uniform across all the price tiers. Given the infrastructure is shared this makes a lot of sense. You get the same performance from the lowest price to the enterprise tier.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<$25<\/td>\n51-100<\/td>\n101-200<\/td>\n201-500<\/td>\nEnterprise<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dulles<\/td>\n0.468<\/td>\n0.479<\/td>\n0.474<\/td>\n0.495<\/td>\n0.563<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Denver<\/td>\n1.366<\/td>\n1.334<\/td>\n1.384<\/td>\n1.315<\/td>\n2.261<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LA<\/td>\n1.008<\/td>\n0.879<\/td>\n1.037<\/td>\n0.971<\/td>\n1.304<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
London<\/td>\n0.862<\/td>\n0.856<\/td>\n0.868<\/td>\n0.856<\/td>\n1.161<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Frankfurt<\/td>\n0.947<\/td>\n0.923<\/td>\n0.881<\/td>\n0.863<\/td>\n1.334<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Rose Hill, Mauritius<\/td>\n2.347<\/td>\n2.355<\/td>\n2.362<\/td>\n2.36<\/td>\n3.823<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Singapore<\/td>\n2.436<\/td>\n2.224<\/td>\n2.223<\/td>\n2.339<\/td>\n3.068<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mumbai<\/td>\n2.59<\/td>\n1.828<\/td>\n2.558<\/td>\n2.555<\/td>\n2.447<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Japan<\/td>\n1.698<\/td>\n1.733<\/td>\n1.748<\/td>\n1.579<\/td>\n2.106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sydney<\/td>\n1.923<\/td>\n1.903<\/td>\n1.932<\/td>\n1.912<\/td>\n2.771<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Brazil<\/td>\n1.389<\/td>\n1.375<\/td>\n1.444<\/td>\n1.397<\/td>\n1.897<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The WPT tests look relatively normal. The only strange thing I noticed is that the Enterprise tier was slower in almost every case compared to the other plans. I have no idea why, could just be a timing issue when the tests were run.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

This year Pressable stepped up their performance game just that extra bit to push all five plans into earning Top Tier status. When you're near the top it's those little gains that make all the difference. A well earned 5\/5 Top Tier WordPress Hosting Performance from Review Signal in 2018.<\/p>\n

\"pressable234x60\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pressable participated for the third time in our WordPress Hosting Performance Benchmarks (2018). This review is based off the results of that test. Pressable participated in the following price brackets: <$25, $51-100, $101-200, $201-500, and Enterprise. In the previous test, Pressable earned four Top Tier status out of 5. This year Pressable earned 5\/5 Top […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1688,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[199],"tags":[157,74,115,200,48],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2180"}],"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=2180"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2180\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2183,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2180\/revisions\/2183"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1688"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reviewsignal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}