Editorial methodology
How We Review Hosting
Our method for checking hosting prices, limits, support, performance, reliability, and editorial scores.
A hosting review begins with a defined product. We record the provider, plan name, billing term, region, operating model, and date. This prevents a shared-hosting offer from being mixed with a VPS test or a promotional annual price from being presented as a permanent monthly cost.
1. Verify the commercial offer#
The first pass records information visible on the provider's product pages, terms, documentation, and checkout path:
- Introductory total and billing term
- Regular renewal price when available
- Mandatory setup fees, add-ons, and taxes shown before payment
- Refund window and important exclusions
- Domain, email, migration, backup, and control-panel inclusions
- Resource limits and fair-use language
Screenshots or source notes should carry a date. The live checkout remains the final source because offers can differ by country, currency, campaign, and account status.
2. Map operational responsibility#
The word “managed” can cover very different tasks. Reviews identify who handles operating-system updates, control-panel maintenance, malware response, backups, restores, application updates, migrations, scaling, and incident investigation.
For a self-managed VPS, root access provides control and also creates maintenance work. For managed hosting, convenience can come with restricted access, platform limits, or paid support tiers. The review describes the boundary in operational terms.
3. Run repeatable tests when available#
A benchmark page records enough information for another tester to understand the result:
- Exact plan and region
- Test date and duration
- Operating system and software stack
- Cache state and test endpoint
- CPU, storage, network, or application test used
- Number of samples and summary method
- Known external factors and limitations
A single fast result is treated as a sample. Long-term uptime, support quality, and noisy-neighbor behavior require repeated observations.
4. Score only completed reviews#
The default weighting is shown below. A review can adjust a weight when the use case requires it, provided the page explains the change.
| Dimension | Default weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Value | 25% | Total cost, renewal, included resources, and mandatory extras |
| Performance | 25% | Application, CPU, storage, and network results with stated methods |
| Reliability and operations | 20% | Backups, restores, incidents, limits, and administration scope |
| Support | 15% | Channels, availability, response quality, and escalation boundaries |
| Usability | 10% | Signup, dashboard, migration, deployment, and routine management |
| Transparency | 5% | Clear pricing, documentation, policies, and disclosure of limitations |
A provider with incomplete evidence receives NR, meaning “not rated.” It does not receive a provisional number.
5. Separate facts from conclusions#
Plan specifications and policy terms are factual records. Recommendations are editorial judgments tied to a defined reader and use case. A low-cost unmanaged VPS can be a strong choice for an experienced administrator and a poor choice for a small business without server-management capacity.
The conclusion should state who benefits, who should avoid the product, and what must be confirmed before purchase.
6. Update and correction cycle#
Commercial reviews should be rechecked after a material plan change, a pricing change, or a significant platform update. Evergreen guides receive a new updated date when the recommendation or supporting facts change.
Readers can report errors at [email protected]. Corrections are assessed against primary sources whenever possible.