If you’ve read my blog, you know I don’t like SiteGround.
Most people who think they’re “good” are people comparing them to Bluehost, GoDaddy, and those kind of hosts. But when you compare them to ChemiCloud (shared) or Rocket.net (cloud) with their 100ms average global TTFB, these make SiteGround look like Bluehost all over again.
For a similar price as SiteGround’s GrowBig plan, you can use the “LiteSpeed setup” on ChemiCloud (LiteSpeed server + LiteSpeed Cache + QUIC.cloud CDN). This is almost always faster/cheaper than GrowBig. For a similar price as SiteGround’s cloud hosting, you can get a <100ms global TTFB on Rocket.net with 32 CPU cores + 128GB RAM and Cloudflare Enterprise.
Both have better support, TrustPilot ratings, and include more server resources, so you’re less likely to run into CPU limits like on SiteGround. Both also use faster technology like NVMe SSDs.
I left SiteGround in 2019 and they’ve since threatened me after I changed my review. But I’m a firm believer in freedom of speech… since god knows the hosting industry is full of enough BS.
For shared hosting, ChemiCloud is a major upgrade for a similar price as SiteGround.
They use LiteSpeed servers which means CPU usage will be about 50% less (a very common problem with SiteGround which forces you to constantly upgrade). This means you’ll use the LiteSpeed setup (LiteSpeed Cache + QUIC.cloud CDN) which are significantly better for web vitals compared to SiteGround’s Optimizer plugin and their CDN. Just see this comparison table.
After you setup LiteSpeed Cache with QUIC, you get full page caching and Memcached like on SiteGround. However, ChemiCloud uses NVMe storage + MariaDB which are faster than SATA SSDs + MySQL used on SiteGround. You’ll want to see my guide on the LiteSpeed Cache settings.
You also get more server resources. ChemiCloud clearly lists how many CPU cores + RAM they use (and has more inodes). Their Turbo+ Boost add-on lets you scale cores/RAM from 3/3 to 6/6. Which means even if you get more traffic and need to upgrade, you can simply buy this add-on instead of being forced onto an entirely new plan… where pricing is at the mercy of SiteGround.
Finally, they usually end up being cheaper. ChemiCloud does free migrations, renewals are lower, QUIC.cloud is usually cheaper than SiteGround’s CDN, and LiteSpeed Cache is free (as opposed to having to buy FlyingPress or WP Rocket to get the best results like you would on SiteGround). And between LiteSpeed being more efficient (along with ChemiCloud’s Turbo+ Boost add-on), forced upgrades are less likely and it’s also cheaper when you actually need to.
|SiteGround GrowBig||FastComet FastCloud Extra||NameHero Turbo Cloud||Scala Entry WP Cloud||ChemiCloud WordPress Turbo|
|Server||Apache + Nginx||LiteSpeed||LiteSpeed||LiteSpeed||LiteSpeed|
|Cores/RAM||Not listed||6 cores/6GB||3 cores/3GB||No limits||3 cores/3GB (scalable to 6/6)|
|Storage||20GB SATA||35GB SATA||Unlimited NVMe (US data center)||50GB NVMe (US data center only)||40GB NVMe (9/11 data centers)|
|Free domain||x||1 year||1 year||1 year||1 year|
|Major incidents||TTFB, DNS, CPU issues, controls Facebook groups||2022 DDoS attack on 3 data centers||2011 2-day node outage||None||None|
|Migrations||$30/site||3 free||1 free||Unlimited free||200 cPanel + 10 non-cPanel|
|Full page caching||✓||✓||✓||✓||✓|
|Cache plugin||SG Optimizer (view chart)||LiteSpeed Cache||LiteSpeed Cache||LiteSpeed Cache||LiteSpeed Cache|
|Control Panel||Site Tools||cPanel||cPanel||SPanel||cPanel|
|Contract length||1 year||1 mo – 3 yrs||3 years||3 years||3 years|
|My full review||Read||Coming soon||Read||Read||Read|
SiteGround is only “more popular” because they do things like control Facebook groups and legally threaten people who write negative reviews. But if you look at some unbiased feedback, you will see many people move from SiteGround to ChemiCloud, but not the other way around.
Only 1 person I referred to ChemiCloud has canceled so far. I also get paid $100 less per sale than I previously did on SiteGround who canceled my account since they didn’t like my review.
For cloud hosting, Rocket.net is faster than SiteGround’s cloud hosting (with a <100ms global TTFB) and is especially fast if you have a WooCommerce site or a global audience.
It’s much better/faster than SiteGround’s cloud hosting (which sucks). I used it and now use Rocket.net. They average a <100ms global TTFB which you can test in tools like KeyCDN or SpeedVitals – SiteGround doesn’t. This is mainly due to Rocket.net’s faster hosting and free Cloudflare Enterprise which is arguably the most powerful CDN offered by any host. And since TTFB is a huge part of core web vitals (and 40% of LCP), it makes a big difference. Feel free to test my site in any tool (all my URLs pass core web vitals or you can look at my GTmetrix report).
Rocket.net is faster than any “mainstream” hosts which is shown in their specs. Just like ChemiCloud, they use NVMe SSDs, MariaDB, and have better support/TrustPilot reviews. They’re also easier: all you really have to do is request a migration, ask support to install Redis, and setup FlyingPress. Cloudflare Enterprise is completely automatic and everything just works.
Pricing is mainly based on bandwidth usage. Instead of SiteGround’s shared hosting, look at Rocket.net’s $25/month Starter plan. Or instead of SiteGround’s cloud hosting, look at their Business plan which is the same price ($100/month). Only it’s significantly faster between free Cloudflare Enterprise CDN, Redis Object Cache Pro, NVMe SSDs, and 32 CPU cores + 128GB RAM.
|SiteGround Cloud Jump Start Plan||Kinsta Starter Plan||Cloudways Vultr HF (2GB)||Rocket.net Starter Plan|
|Type||Cloud||Cloud (shared containers)||Cloud||Private cloud|
|Server||Apache + Nginx||Apache + Nginx||Apache + Nginx||Apache + Nginx|
|Nginx reverse proxy||✓||$50/mo||✓||✓|
|CPU Cores/RAM||4 cores + 8GB||12 cores + 8GB||1 core + 2GB||32 cores + 128GB|
|Storage||40GB SATA||10GB SATA||64GB NVMe||10GB NVMe|
|Object cache||Memcached||$100/mo Redis||Redis Pro||Redis (Redis Pro on Business plan)|
|PHP workers||Not listed, but common CPU limits||2||No limit||No limit|
|Bandwidth + visits||5TB/mo||25k/mo||2TB/mo||50GB + 250k/mo|
|CDN||$14.99/mo SiteGround CDN||Cloudflare APO + firewall rules (read)||$5/mo Cloudflare Enterprise + challenge pages||Free Cloudflare Enterprise (read)|
|Full page caching||✓||✓||x||✓|
|DNS||Blocked by Google (4 days)||Amazon Route 53||$5/mo DNS Made Easy||Cloudflare|
|Cache plugin||SG Optimizer||Use FlyingPress||Breeze||Use FlyingPress|
|Data centers||10||35||44||Served from Cloudflare’s edge|
|Control panel||Site Tools||MyKinsta||Custom (difficult)||Mission Control|
|Migrations||$30/site||Unlimited free||1 free + $25/site||Unlimited free|
|How it starts costing more||High initial price, CPU limits, CDN, price increases, internal incidents||PHP workers, add-ons, monthly visits, bandwidth, price increases||CPU limits, CDN, backups, price increases||Bandwidth|
|Incidents||TTFB, DNS, CPU issues, controls Facebook groups||None||Acquired by DigitalOcean, raised prices, removed Vultr/Linode||None|
|Monthly price||$100 + CDN||$29 when paying yearly + add-ons||$30 + CDN||$25 when paying yearly|
|My full review||Read||Read||Read||Read|
3. Scala Hosting
I would use Scala’s Entry WP Cloud plan if you want something more powerful than shared hosting (it’s shared/cloud hybrid) but don’t want to pay as much for Rocket.net.
The main difference with this plan is you’re not limited in resources and inodes. You also get a faster setup with Redis, NVMe SSDs, and MariaDB. However, they only use NVMe in the US data center, so if your visitors are somewhere else, I would stick with ChemiCloud or Rocket.net. The other (major) difference is they use a custom control panel (SPanel) instead of cPanel. While it does take a little getting used to, it has several advantages over cPanel, like using less resources.
Again, you’ll find many people move from SiteGround to Scala but not the other way around. They don’t have much feedback in Facebook groups because SiteGround removes posts that mention other hosts. But I’ve tried their hosting and Scala’s servers are definitely faster than SG.
FastComet is good if you’re on a tight budget but still want to use LiteSpeed. However, you don’t get NVMe storage and their technology is slightly slower than Chemi + Scala.
FastComet also uses LiteSpeed and the 2 key advantages are you get CPU cores + RAM and a cheaper price. But is paying about $2/mo less than ChemiCloud worth still using SATA SSDs and MySQL? I’ll pay the extra $2/mo for faster NVMe storage and MariaDB, but that’s obviously up to you. Otherwise, both are similar with better speed + support than SiteGround’s shared hosting.
NameHero is a good option for US-based visitors since only their US data center uses NVMe storage. However, they’ve gotten expensive compared to ChemiCloud/FastComet.
NameHero was my go-to recommendation for shared LiteSpeed hosting until I discovered ChemiCloud. They’re similar, but NameHero will cost more, only use NVMe in their US data center, include only 1 free migration, and they don’t have a scalable Turbo+ Boost add-on like ChemiCloud. They also have several worse TrustPilot reviews. A key benefit is they use Redis which is faster than Memcached. But I don’t think it’s worth it in terms of everything else. They are still way ahead of SiteGround, I just think the first 3 hosts in this list provide a better value.
Cloudways Vultr HF used to be my #1 SiteGround alternative, but since they were acquired by DigitalOcean, I pushed them down for a few reasons. They are still much faster than SiteGround especially when using their $5/mo Cloudflare Enterprise add-on.
The good thing about Cloudways is it’s fast. Especially if you use Vultr High Frequency which has high CPU clock speeds, NVMe SSDs, and Redis Object Cache Pro. Your site can fly especially with the Cloudflare Enterprise add-on. Launching a server and connecting your domain isn’t hard, and the extensive settings inside their dashboard gives you better control of your server. Cloudways has monthly pricing and a free migration – trying them is easy without committing.
However, there are also bad things about Cloudways. They were acquired by DigitalOcean who removed Vultr (except they kept it on my landing page), they increased prices, I’ve seen several reports their servers got slower, and support is “meh.” And I don’t consider it beginner friendly. Like SiteGround’s cache plugin, Cloudways Breeze isn’t great and you’ll want to use FlyingPress instead. When you add their cost of hosting, CDN, FlyingPress, and email hosting – it gets pricey.
7. A2 Hosting
A2 Hosting is the last host I would consider a good SiteGround alternative, but they have a history of downtimes and speed/specs aren’t as fast as other hosts in this list.
Most of their negative reviews are about downtimes and support isn’t as good either. Since A2 has the worst downtimes in this list by far, they’re also the last SiteGround alternative in this list.
Comment If You Need Help Choosing A SiteGround Alternative
I love steering people away from SiteGround!
And not just for affiliate commissions. They’re overhyped, unethical, and don’t deserve your business. So whether you use my links or not, I’m glad to help you if you have questions. I’ve referred nearly 3,000 people to them and promise you – they’re definitely not the best hosting.