I'm having trouble figuring out which host is faster. Our current host costs $2/month more and I can only host one site. The other host can host several sites, one of which will for my freelance business. But I don't want to move hosts (it'll be very smooth, new host has lots of good features for transitioning) unless the speeds are both the same or marginal at worst.


Current Host : www.PackersHome.com

Other Host: www.PackerPeople.com

To close to call

www.PackerPeople.com was for me... better load time and the site is more responsive on page loads

people slightly more better This page was generated in 0.088 seconds.
current very respectable This page was generated in 0.179 seconds.

As Sheriff John Chance (John Wayne) said when comparing the speed of the gun draws of Dude (Dean Martin) and Colorado (Ricky Nelson) in Rio Bravo: "It'd be pretty close. I'd hate to have to live on the difference."

Keep the feedback coming folks. Thank you.


Feedback via voting or commenting or both. Whichever. :)

second round of tests goes to current site:

Packer people-This page was generated in 0.305 seconds.
current- This page was generated in 0.144 seconds.

I can analyze the numbers til I'm blue in the face lol, but which feels faster?
If all my statistics say they are identical, but for the people using it, it is sluggish or slow ... then those numbers didn't really help much.

I guess, basically, does the page loading
(which that's not accurate either, that's not the actual page load because it doesn't include the site.Master page) does the page loading 0.305 seconds make the page less enjoyable than if were to load at 0.144 seconds?


Do both sites feel similar, acceptable or is there a noticeable difference (slower or faster) between them?

One is slightly faster (People) than the other, but the difference is so marginal, I would then look to the best value. Thanks Kevin.

Zero2Cool;250402I can analyze the numbers til I'm blue in the face lol, but which feels faster?
If all my statistics say they are identical, but for the people using it, it is sluggish or slow ... then those numbers didn't really help much.

I guess, basically, does the page loading
(which that's not accurate either, that's not the actual page load because it doesn't include the site.Master page) does the page loading 0.305 seconds make the page less enjoyable than if were to load at 0.144 seconds?


Do both sites feel similar, acceptable or is there a noticeable difference (slower or faster) between them?

oh.
well think of it this way.
I click the links.
Before I can go to the new tab they are both open.
I do not see the difference in speed because they are both so awesomely fast.


When People is faster is it because it doesn't have the whole PackersHome library to contend with?

wpr;250404oh.
well think of it this way.
I click the links.
Before I can go to the new tab they are both open.
I do not see the difference in speed because they are both so awesomely fast.


When People is faster is it because it doesn't have the whole PackersHome library to contend with?

It's a full site backup, including database and files. Only thing that's different is I changed the logo on the top and the background is darker to help distinguish the two sites.


Good to hear that there's either no difference, or People is faster.