BlueHost vs FatCow

BlueHost versus FatCow

There are many different choices available in regards to shared hosting providers, and many different plans that are available to choose from. Through a review of the different options that are available to the user, it is possible to see that choosing the right hosting plan may not be as difficult as it originally sounds. In this instance, a look at BlueHost and FatCow’s different shared plans will be reviewed in order to determine which of the two plans is truly better for the consumer, and which should be discarded to the wayside in an attempt to locate the best plan for the user.

BlueHost vs FatCow

FatCow’s hosting specifications are a little bit nebulous, stating that their disk space and bandwidth offered falls under the amount of “oodles” provided; when looking at what they define this as, it states that an amount is acceptable as long as it falls within normal usage parameters, but it does not straight out define what they consider to be normal usage parameters. They provide unlimited POP mailboxes, a free domain name on sign up, a free website builder, and a large variety of one click script installations, including WordPress, phpBB, and Joomla. They provide ecommerce software, SSL, FTP, SEO optimization, a $50 credit to social networking, a listing in yellowpages.com, 24/7 support, and a thirty day money back guarantee. Their lowest term is 12 months at a rate of $8.99 per month.

BlueHost offers unlimited domain hosting, file transfers, hosting space, and domain hosting. They provide a domain registered free of charge for the first year with a sign up for their shared hosting plan and have a wide variety of one click script installations including ecommerce software, site builders, and WordPress. Secure SSH access, SSL, CGI, FTP, Ruby on Rails, and site traffic analytics. PHP, MySQL, and Perl are all compatible on their shared hosting plans. cPanel is the control panel that is used, and they provide a $100 Google Adwords coupon as a part of an affiliate program that they have setup with Google. Their tech support is available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, and they provide an introductory rate of $4.95 for new customers and $6.95 for each subsequent month.

After reviewing the two different plans, they are both close, it is true, but BlueHost comes out in the end, because of several different factors. First, they do not require a contract for a year at the minimum in order to be able to use their services. They are specific in the amount of space and bandwidth that they offer on a monthly basis, whereas FatCow’s descriptions leave room for a large amount of interpretation, working to ensure that the hosting company would be able to set their “normal” limit at whatever they deem appropriate for the day, and assign a terms of service violation to any account that they deem fit, which puts the customer in a bad place. The other issue with FatCow’s setup is in regards to email; POP isn’t the more commonly used email protocol any longer, because without changing settings, it downloads those emails to just one computer only; IMAP allows for the viewing of all emails on all different mail clients without having to change any of the original default settings in the mail client. Most of their other features are standard, however, it is these specific issues with FatCow’s service and descriptions that they have provided on their site that serve as a means of taking them out of the running in this comparison.

Through a good look at the two hosting plans, it is possible to see which of the two is better, and it is not because one has more features than the other. In this case, the issue is because of the way that one of the two hosting providers chooses to provide the descriptions and the definitions of specific features that they offer; those features are a key aspect of the hosting package itself, and given the nebulousness of what has been provided on the site itself, it is not something that the business minded individual should risk taking a chance on, hoping that they will not catch an admin at FatCow on a bad day, and end up having that admin’s bad day being taken out on their hosting account instead.

BlueHost is the clear winner in this comparison, beating out FatCow not for what it has, but for the marketing that is present behind the site itself, and a clear and concise ability of the marketing department to understand that certain things must be clearly defined in order to work, and the terms of a specific plan are one of those things.

About the Author

Top