Namecheap Vs Bluehost

These two web hosting companies are neck-and-neck in the battle to dominate the internet presence. But, which one is better? 

In this head-to-head comparison between Namecheap vs BlueHost, we take an exhaustive look at important factors such as pricing, page loading time, time to interactive, loading impact test, uptime, etc – helping readers make their decision before signing up with either company.

Namecheap and Bluehost are the greatest hosts around! Whether you’re new at this whole web hosting thing or are an old pro who needs something cheap but still good enough to get things done without any fussing about it; one of these providers will be perfect for what’s needed. That being said there are some differences between these services when we take our little tests into consideration, so let’s start off.


Hosting providers have a wide range of pricing plans.


namecheap vs bluehost

Namecheap’s cheapest package is only $2.88 per month but if you sign up for 12 months upfront it will cost just $1.44 at that initial term, then renew to its normal price of $2.88).


namecheap vs bluehost

Their cheapest shared plan starts at just $3.95 per month! But once your three-year term expires, the price goes up to an affordable but still competitively priced monthly fee that renews automatically for as long as you need it.


Page Loading Time

After doing some research, I found out that Bluehost is one of the fastest and most reliable hosts. One such indicator was how long it took for my website to load on Namecheap compared to Bluehost – this metric can be a deciding factor when considering hosting options because slow websites are practically irrelevant in today’s fast-paced world! 

The server performance for Bluehost was stellar with an “A” grade on GTMetrix and they make it easy to optimize your site without any extra effort!

Namecheap offers a decent “C”-grade which is mostly due to some potential resource bottlenecks slowing down their servers.


Time To Interactive

You don’t need your website to load fully in order for a user to interact with elements on the page. In fact, lots of server-side optimizations focus on delivering an interactive webpage first while loading everything else in the background. 

On Google Insights, Bluehost scored nearly perfect 100 points since it had an average TTI (time to interactive) that averaged 1.5 seconds and has great speed index results; I have no complaints about this company! It only confirmed what GTMetrix found: excellent performance by Bluehost

Namecheap also did well but not as well as Bluehost when testing its responsiveness using Google insights data test — 97 out of 100 was their overall score which is still pretty impressive.


Loading Impact Test

You may think that I’ve only tested how Bluehost and Namecheap respond to single user requests, but in practical situations, your website will be accessed by dozens (even hundreds) of visitors at the same time! To see how these two hosts would perform under this kind of pressure, I ran a load impact test on each.

Both companies had their upsides – with an average full page loading of 1.946 seconds for Namecheap versus 4.7 seconds for Bluehost; however, there were some surprises in store too-namely where it was consistently quicker to access pages hosted through BlueHost than those found on NameCheap servers!



Uptime is very important. You want a host that will keep your website up and running at all times, even during the slow months of December to March. Bluehost came close with 99% uptime over six consecutive months while Namecheap had an almost perfect 100%.


Namecheap or Bluehost?

There is no clear-cut answer as to which host offers better performance overall, but Bluehost takes a slight lead in terms of speed on GTMetrix’s metrics. 

My opinion is that Namecheap is a great domain registrar, but it can’t hold up to the quality of Bluehost as a hosting, which is an excellent host at your fingertips that offers quick performance and ease-of-use as well as unlimited bandwidth for its users.