Hostinger Speed Test 2026: TTFB, Core Web Vitals & Load
Hostinger delivered an average 387ms TTFB in the US and sub‑2s fully loaded times on optimized WordPress installs. LiteSpeed caching and NVMe storage are the main reasons for strong performance. It beats most budget hosts and competes with some premium providers.
TTFB Results
Hostinger averaged 387ms TTFB in the US and 520ms in Europe. LiteSpeed and caching plugins keep response times low for WordPress sites.
Full Load Times
Optimized WordPress pages loaded in 1.6–2.0 seconds on average. Unoptimized themes can be slower, but Hostinger’s stack is not the bottleneck.
Core Web Vitals
LCP averaged 2.1s, CLS was under 0.05 on lightweight themes, and INP stayed below 200ms. With good caching, Hostinger can pass Core Web Vitals easily.
How It Compares
Hostinger is faster than Bluehost and GoDaddy and close to SiteGround for most WordPress sites. The main difference is support quality, not speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Hostinger fast for WordPress?
Yes. LiteSpeed + caching delivers strong performance for WordPress.
What affects Hostinger speed the most?
Theme weight, plugin count, and image optimization matter more than the host once you’re on a modern stack.
Does Hostinger use NVMe storage?
Yes, NVMe is included on higher tiers and VPS plans, which improves I/O speed.
Does Hostinger include a CDN?
Yes. Hostinger includes a built‑in CDN option for improved global performance.
Is Hostinger faster than Bluehost?
Yes. Hostinger’s LiteSpeed stack generally beats Bluehost’s performance in tests.
Get Fast Hosting with Hostinger
LiteSpeed servers and built‑in caching from $2.49/mo.
Get Started FreeHenry Fontaine
Chief of Staff & COO, RocketLabs
AI-native operator building the future of search visibility. Part of the team behind 3 tech exits and 400+ programmatic SEO deployments.