InterServer Review 2026: 10 Years, 50+ VPS & Servers

A reliable web hosting provider can make a big difference to your website’s speed and overall performance. But how well does InterServer perform in real-world conditions? To find this out, I purchased one of its VPS plans, hosted a WordPress website on it and ran several tests to check its actual performance.

For this InterServer review, I purchased the KVM Linux VPS Slice (Ubuntu) plan at $6 per month, as shown in my account dashboard.

I hosted my WordPress test website, interserver.webhostbenchmark.com, on this server and tested its page load speed, response times and uptime. I also contacted the support team through live chat to ask about its data centre locations and money-back guarantee.

I used tools such as Google PageSpeed Insights, GTmetrix and WebPageTest to assess different aspects of the website’s performance. I’ve included screenshots of my actual test results throughout this review, along with my observations about the figures and what they mean for the users. 

Let me disclose that I’ve also been using InterServer since February 2016. This gives me nearly 10 years of experience with its hosting services.

This long-term experience helps me understand how its servers perform beyond individual benchmark tests, from hosting a single website to managing multiple websites. I’ll share my findings from both hands-on testing and years of use so you can get a clearer picture of what to expect.

If you’re new to web hosting and plan to buy an InterServer VPS, my hands-on tests will help you understand what to expect before you spend your money.

My InterServer VPS has the IP address 162.35.16.25 and is located in Secaucus, New Jersey, USA. 

The server’s network details also identify InterServer, Inc. as the ASN organisation. 

These details are important to know before you look at my test results, as the server’s physical location can affect response times and website loading speed for visitors in different regions.

About InterServer

InterServer is a US-based web hosting company that has been providing hosting services since 1999. It was co-founded by Mike Lavrik and John Quaglieri, starting with a reseller hosting account before expanding into a wider range of services. 

Today, the company offers shared web hosting, WordPress hosting, VPS hosting, cloud computing, dedicated servers and colocation services. 

I find its long history in the hosting business a useful starting point for this review, as it gives me a chance to assess how its services perform beyond the claims on its website. 

While researching InterServer, I found that it focuses on simple pricing and the range of features included with its standard hosting plan. It also includes free SSL certificates, weekly backups, email accounts, website migration assistance and Cloudflare CDN.

InterServer DataCenters

I wanted to confirm where InterServer keeps its servers before choosing a hosting plan, so I contacted its live chat support team and asked how many data centres it operates and where they are located.

The expert said that all InterServer data centres are located in the United States and directed me to the company’s official data centre page for more details. 

After checking the official page, I found that InterServer lists several facilities across the New Jersey area, along with locations in Dallas, Texas, and Los Angeles, California. The facilities have different features, including backup power, cooling systems, controlled entry and on-site security. 

InterServer Money-Back Guarantee

I also asked the InterServer support team about its money-back guarantee because I wanted to know how many days I would have to request a refund after buying a hosting plan.

The representative confirmed that InterServer offers a 30-day money-back guarantee for shared web hosting. This means I can request a refund within 30 days of signing up for a shared hosting plan. 

However, the same guarantee does not apply to all InterServer services. 

For VPS and dedicated server plans, refunds are available only before the service is set up. Once the server is ready and the service has been activated, I cannot request a refund under this policy. 

So, the refund terms depend on the type of hosting I purchase, and it is better to check the conditions before placing an order.

Tools I used to Review InterServer

I wanted to see how InterServer performs in actual use, so I ran a series of tests. I checked everything from page loading speed and server response times to uptime, traffic handling, network performance and SSL security. The table below lists the tools I used, the tests I ran and how each result helps me understand the server’s performance.

Tool	What I Tested and Why It Matters
WordPress Hosting Benchmark	Assessed CPU, memory, storage, database and image processing for WordPress tasks.
Geekbench Browser	Measured single-core and multi-core CPU performance to assess processing power.
YABS (iperf3)	Tested IPv4 & IPv6 network speeds across global locations to compare bandwidth and latency.
YABS (fio)	Measured disk read/write speeds at different block sizes to assess storage performance.
k6	Tested response times and errors with around 20 virtual users.
Ping.pe	Checked global ping latency to assess network response times.
Flying TTFB	Measured TTFB across 22 locations to compare global server response speeds.
Google PageSpeed Insights	Compared desktop and mobile speed, content loading and page stability.
HetrixTools	I monitored uptime and response times to check whether my website stayed accessible or not.
In-house DNS Testing Tool	Tested DNS resolution through four public resolvers to check lookup speed.
iPerf3	Measured network bandwidth between the computer and server.
SSL Labs	I checked the SSL/TLS configuration to assess the security of the tested connection.

These tests gave me a clearer picture of how InterServer performed across different areas, from WordPress operations and visitor load to global response times and connection security. 

I’ve included screenshots of the results in the relevant sections so you can check the actual figures and compare them with your own hosting needs. 

Keep in mind that I tested only one WordPress website, so your results may differ based on your website’s design, plugins, content and traffic.

InterServer’s Performance Test

I hosted just one WordPress website, interserver.webhostbenchmark.com, on my KVM Linux VPS Slice (Ubuntu) server and ran several tests to check its performance under different conditions. 

I assessed website loading speed, server response times, uptime, performance under multiple visitors, global connectivity, network speed, DNS resolution and SSL security. I have attached screenshots of each test result throughout the review so you can see the actual figures and understand how the server performed in each area. 

Please remember that these results reflect my WordPress website under the tested conditions. Another website with a different theme, plugins, content or visitor traffic may produce different results.

WordPress Hosting Benchmark Test

A WordPress website depends on several server resources working together, from processing PHP requests and database queries to handling files, images and network traffic. 

To understand how well InterServer handles these tasks, I ran the WordPress Hosting Benchmark tool on the hosted WordPress website. The benchmark completed successfully, with all seven test categories. 

They are:

• CPU and memory
• Filesystem
• Database
• WordPress core
• Compression and serialization
• Image processing
• Network

All these processes are showing 100% completion in the screenshot below.

However, the overall performance score was 5.9, so the completion percentages should not be mistaken for perfect performance scores. 

The individual scores shows both the strengths and weaker areas of InterServer’s performance across different server operations:

• CPU, memory, and filesystem: CPU and memory operation scores ranged from 4.43 to 8, showing varying performance across tasks. Filesystem results were stronger, with small-file I/O scoring 9.99.
• Database performance: Results varied considerably, with temporary disk-based tables scoring 8.14, while complex database queries across multiple tables scored 0. This may indicate a weakness in that specific benchmark operation.
• Network & image processing: The network download speed test scored 9.81, indicating strong performance in that test. Image-processing results were less consistent, with image quality/format conversion scoring 0, while other operations produced different scores.

The results show that InterServer handled file operations and network downloads well in this benchmark, but certain database and image-processing tasks may need closer attention on a WordPress site that depends heavily on complex queries or image manipulation. 

These findings provide a useful starting point for evaluating the server

Remember: The benchmark given above alone cannot tell you how quickly every real-world website will perform under its own workload. I have a WordPress Website, so it performed accordingly. If you host a custom site on it, the results might be different from what you’re seeing here.

InterServer CPU Performance Testing Using Geekbench Browser

I used Geekbench Browser to test the CPU performance of my InterServer VPS and see how well it handles processor-intensive tasks. 

The screenshot below, shows a QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) virtual machine with a single-core score of 957 and a multi-core score of 956. These scores help me understand how quickly the processor handles different workloads. The benchmark includes tests for integer calculations, floating-point operations and other processor-related tasks.

I also checked the system information displayed in the results to understand the virtual machine environment, CPU configuration, operating system and memory details. One thing I noticed was that the multi-core score was almost identical to the single-core score. 

This suggests that the benchmark showed little extra performance from multiple cores during this particular run, but it does not mean my VPS has only one CPU core. The result gives me a useful starting point for judging InterServer’s CPU performance. 

Network Speed Testing Using YABS

Along with CPU performance, I wanted to see how quickly my InterServer VPS could transfer data across different locations. For this, I used Yet-Another-Bench-Script (YABS), which runs iperf3 network tests over both IPv4 and IPv6 connections. 

The results show sending speed, receiving speed and ping latency for several test locations, including London, Amsterdam, Tashkent, Singapore, Los Angeles, New York and São Paulo.

• IPv4 network performance: Los Angeles recorded the highest sending and receiving speeds at 3.79 Gbit/s, while New York delivered 2.56 Gbit/s receiving speed with 61.9 ms ping.
• IPv6 network performance: Los Angeles reached 2.74 Gbit/s sending and 2.17 Gbit/s receiving speed, while Amsterdam recorded 1.43 Gbit/s sending speed.

These results help me understand how well the VPS transfers data across different networks. Faster transfer speeds can help with large file transfers, backups and data-heavy tasks, while lower latency can improve the response time for remote connections and requests. 

But these figures come from the listed test endpoints and do not guarantee the same speeds for every website visitor.

System Specifications & Disk Speed Testing Using YABS

I also used YABS to check the system specifications and disk performance of my VPS. 

The system report lists an Intel Xeon Gold 6230R processor running at 2.10 GHz, one allocated CPU core, 3.8 GiB of RAM, 1,024 MiB of swap and 77.6 GiB of disk space. My VPS runs Ubuntu 24.04.5 LTS on KVM virtualisation, with both IPv4 and IPv6 online. 

Note: InterServer is also our top recommendation for the best storage dedicated servers.

The report lists the server location as Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.

To test storage performance, YABS ran the fio benchmark with a mixed 50/50 read-and-write workload at different block sizes. This helped me check how quickly the storage could read and write data during the test. (you can refer to the image for the scores during the testing sessions conducted)

• 4 KB block size: The test recorded 139.89 MB/s read speed and 140.26 MB/s write speed, with approximately 34,000 IOPS for each operation. (Small-block tests are useful for understanding storage performance during smaller operations, such as those involved in database activity)
• 64 KB block size: Read speed reached 1.52 GB/s, while write speed reached 1.53 GB/s. These results show how the storage handled larger data operations in this benchmark.
• 512 KB block size: The benchmark reported 4.06 GB/s read speed and 4.28 GB/s write speed.
• 1 MB block size: Read speed reached 1.35 GB/s, while write speed reached 1.44 GB/s.

The results varied across block sizes, which is expected because storage performance depends on the size and type of operation being tested. Faster storage can help with database access, website files, backups and other disk-related tasks. 

I would also need website load tests and Global ping test to get a clearer picture of how the server performs under different conditions.

Website Load Testing

To understand how InterServer handles multiple visitors accessing a website at the same time, I ran a load test using k6. This test helps me see how quickly the server responds as the number of active users increases, whether requests fail under pressure and how stable the website remains during a busy period.

As per the website load testing session, I came to know these points:

• The results show that 2,601 requests were completed with zero HTTP failures, while the test reached a peak request rate of 9.58 requests per second. 
• The 95th-percentile (P95) response time was 1,488 ms, meaning 95% of requests were handled within approximately 1.49 seconds, while the remaining 5% took longer. 

Please refer to the screenshot of the testing result below to verify the test results.

As you can see, the graph shows the number of virtual users rising to around 20 and staying near that level for most of the test. During the entire testing session, the response time moved up and down, with some slower responses, before falling as the test ended and the load decreased. 

The good thing about this testing is that no HTTP failures occurred during this test, so the server continued handling requests without reporting HTTP errors. 

The website loading test conducted above tells me that InterServer handled this particular test successfully, but websites expecting heavier traffic should run longer tests with more concurrent users to understand how the server performs at higher demand.

Global Ping Test

To understand how responsive InterServer’s server is across different geographical regions, I looked at its ping latency and packet response rate using Ping.pe. 

The test sent 4 ping requests from multiple locations and recorded the minimum, average and maximum response times.

The screenshot shows successful responses of 4/4 from most locations, including London, Frankfurt, Singapore, Mumbai, and several US cities. 

A few results were particularly interesting: 

• Vancouver recorded an average of approximately 32.4 ms, 
• Atlanta 45.8 ms
• Dallas 47.5 ms
• New York 57.3 ms, 
• London averaged 132.2 ms.
• Mumbai recorded around 288.2 ms, and Jaipur was considerably higher at 339.8 ms. 

The lower ping times suggest a quicker server response at the network level, while higher latency can add waiting time before other parts of a page request are completed. These results also show why location matters. The experience can vary considerably between regions and please remember that ping alone does not establish the website’s full loading speed.

Global TTFB Test Using Flying TTFB

Ping measures network responsiveness (as seen already above) but I also wanted to see how quickly InterServer began returning an actual HTTP response from different parts of the world. 

For this, I used Flying TTFB, which checks Time to First Byte (TTFB) across 22 global locations. The screenshot below reports HTTP 200 responses from all 22 locations, with measured TTFB varying substantially by region.

The Flying TTFB results show that InterServer’s initial response speed varies by region. Here is what these differences mean for visitors in each region:

Region	Affect on Visitors
North America	Visitors experience faster initial server responses. This means that the pages begin loading quickly in several locations.
Europe	Longer initial response times may cause a noticeable delay before page content starts loading.
Asia	Visitors may experience slower initial connections, particularly in India, which can affect the responsiveness of the website.
Africa	The slowest response among these regions may result in a longer initial wait before the website begins delivering content.

The 200 status codes tells that the tested endpoint returned a successful HTTP response during this test, while the timing differences show that response speed was not consistent worldwide. 

This testing session means that a visitor’s location can have a noticeable effect on how quickly the server starts delivering a page. The North American results were particularly low in some locations, whereas several Asian, European, and African locations took longer. 

TTFB is only one part of page loading, though, so caching, CDN coverage, WordPress optimisation and the visitor’s connection can also affect the final experience.

Google PageSpeed Testing

To check how my WordPress website performs on InterServer, I used Google PageSpeed Insights to test its desktop and mobile performance. I checked the performance scores, loading times, content rendering, Total Blocking Time, and layout stability to see how quickly the website loads and how smoothly visitors can browse it.

InterServer PageSpeed Insights Testing (Desktop Performance)

Website loading speed directly affects how quickly visitors can access content, interact with a page and navigate a website without unnecessary delays. 

To see the desktop experience under controlled conditions, the WP website was assessed using Google PageSpeed Insights, which measures performance through metrics such as First Contentful Paint (FCP), Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), Total Blocking Time (TBT), Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS), and Speed Index. 

The purpose of this test was to understand how nicely the InterServer-hosted test website handles page rendering on a desktop browser and whether its main content appears quickly. 

The results were encouraging, with a performance score of 92/100. For the other testing results like for total block time and CLS, you can refer to the screenshot above. The only area for improvement was the Speed Index, which stood at 2.8 seconds. 

These figures suggest that the tested website delivers a responsive desktop experience. It allows visitors to see important content without a prolonged wait.

InterServer PageSpeed Insights Testing (Mobile Performance)

Desktop performance only tells part of the story, as smartphone users may experience different loading times due to smaller viewports, page resources and the simulated conditions used during testing. To examine this difference, Google PageSpeed Insights was used to evaluate the mobile version also of the same WP site and measure how quickly its content becomes visible and how smoothly the page renders. 

The mobile test returned a performance score of 85/100, which is a good result, although it falls seven points below the desktop score as seen in the screenshot below.

From a visitor’s point of view, the website should show its initial content reasonably quickly, but users on mobile devices may need to wait longer before the page looks fully loaded. This matters particularly for sites that receive substantial smartphone traffic, where slower visual rendering can affect the browsing experience. 

The results tell me that the mobile experience deserves further optimisation, especially around the resources responsible for displaying the main content and completing the page’s visual rendering. 

Since PageSpeed Insights showed no real-user field data, these findings represent a simulated test. The results therefore provide a useful indication of the website’s mobile performance under the tested conditions. 

Further testing would be needed (that we’ve done in this InterServer review) to determine how much of the delay comes from hosting, images, scripts or other page-level factors.

Uptime Monitoring & Global Response Time Test

Uptime and response time are important when choosing a hosting provider because a website needs to remain accessible while delivering pages at a reasonable speed to visitors in different locations. 

In this testing session of my InterServer review, I focused on how consistently the hosted website stayed online and how quickly it responded to monitoring requests from different regions. 

The test results were collected through HetrixTools. It tracks website availability, response times and performance across monitoring locations.

In the screenshot, the monitor shows 100.0000% overall uptime, an average response time of 815.1 ms, and an online status. 

The regional response-time table also shows different results for locations such as New York, London, Singapore and Mumbai, with response times varying by region. The recent uptime section displays successful checks, while the response-time graph remains fairly steady for most of the recorded period, with a noticeable rise near the end. 

These results tell me that the website remained accessible throughout the period shown, although its average response time was not especially low. This means that InterServer delivered consistent availability during this monitoring window, but visitors may experience different response speeds depending on their location and network route. 

Please note one thing! 100% uptime applies to the period shown in this screenshot. It doesn’t apply to InterServer’s long-term uptime performance.

DNS Resolution Test 

A website’s domain must be translated into an IP address before a browser can connect to the correct server. To test this, I used my in-house tool to conduct a DNS resolution test shown in the screenshot below, which compares 4 public DNS resolvers. 

The reported average was 114 ms, with Google DNS resolving the address in 46 ms, OpenDNS in 61 ms, Cloudflare in 136 ms, and Quad9 in 212 ms. All 4 resolvers returned the same IP address, 162.35.16.25, and the tool marked DNS propagation as fully propagated. 

That is really good because the resolvers agreed on the destination, although their response times varied. 

The report also displays “Nameservers: Not detected,” so I would treat that particular field as an unresolved result from the tool. 

Why is this test important? DNS lookup time is important to know as it contributes to the initial connection delay, especially during a fresh visit or when a DNS answer is not cached. Once the result is cached, subsequent visits may not need the same lookup again.

Network Bandwidth Testing

Network bandwidth is another important part of hosting performance as it affects how quickly data can move between the server and a connected computer. 

To measure this, I ran iPerf3, a network testing tool that measures data transfer speed between two endpoints. The screenshot below, shows a successful connection to the InterServer machine at 162.35.16.25 on port 5201.

During the 10-second transfer, the client reached a peak interval speed of 93.1 Mbps, while the final summary reported 61.6 Mbps on the sender side and 59.2 Mbps on the receiver side. The server received 72.5 MB of data over approximately 10.27 seconds, giving a receiver-side average of 59.2 Mbps. 

The first connection attempt also displayed a control-socket error, and the server logged an idle-time error while waiting for data, but the subsequent transfer completed and produced usable results. 

From my experience, the successful run confirms that data could travel between the test computer and the server at a measurable rate, although the average throughput was lower than the peak speed seen during individual intervals. 

SSL Security Testing

To understand how well InterServer protects a website’s data during transmission, an SSL security test is important. A hosting server may deliver good speed and uptime, but its SSL configuration also needs to be secure enough to protect visitors when they browse the website, submit information, or access pages over HTTPS. 

For this part of the review, I used SSL Labs to evaluate the SSL certificate, supported security protocols, key exchange, cipher strength and overall TLS configuration of InterServer’s server.

As you can see in the screenshot above, it shows an overall grade of A, with the certificate and protocol support scoring 100 out of 100, while key exchange and cipher strength score approximately 90 out of 100. 

Another positive sign is support for TLS 1.3, a modern security protocol that helps provide secure connections with improved efficiency. 

I saw that the report also points out that the server does not support post-quantum cryptography (PQC) key exchange. This is something that you should note as an area for future improvement, although its absence does not automatically mean that the current SSL configuration is insecure. 

InterServer’s tested endpoint demonstrates a strong SSL/TLS setup, which helps protect data exchanged between the website and its visitors. The A rating is a good sign for anyone running a business website, WordPress blog, or other site where visitor trust matters.

Please note that this result applies specifically to the tested hostname and IP address, so the SSL configuration of any other website hosted on the server may need to be assessed separately.

Easy to Use Client’s Dashboard UI

When I checked the InterServer VPS dashboard, I found that it provides almost everything I need to manage a server from one place. 

The top section clearly displays my VPS package, monthly billing, server status and host information, so I can quickly check the important details. I also liked the one-click quick action buttons, which make common tasks easier to access. 

Please see the screenshot of my InterServer’s dashboard. It can give you a proper idea about the UI

As you can see above, I can start, restart, or stop the VPS, reinstall the operating system, check bandwidth and traffic usage and access other server settings without searching through multiple pages.

The left sidebar also keeps options such as Domains, DNS Manager, Storage, Mail, Webhosting, Billing, and Tickets within easy reach. 

From a beginner’s point of view, the dashboard can feel a little overwhelming at first because it displays many technical options together and some features, such as VNC, reverse DNS, and operating system reinstallation, require basic server knowledge. 

I would say InterServer is reasonably easy to navigate but not completely beginner-friendly. 

If you are new to VPS hosting, you should be able to find the main controls without much trouble, but you may need some guidance before using the advanced settings. I would also recommend taking a backup before reinstalling the OS or restoring the server, as these actions can affect your existing data. 

InterServer’s Support Channel Performance

To review InterServer’s customer support, I contacted its expert team through live chat and ticket support at different times to check how quickly they responded and how helpful their answers were. 

I asked technical questions about VPS resources and data centre locations. This helped me assess the team’s availability and ability to answer common questions that customers may have before purchasing a hosting plan.

LiveChat (Response in just 10 seconds)

My experience with InterServer’s live chat support was quite good in terms of the information provided. I asked the team whether their VPS plans come with dedicated CPU cores or shared resources, whether I would get full root access with Ubuntu and whether I could install and manage my own software.

As you can see in the screenshot, the support agent explained that InterServer VPS uses a slice-based resource system, where CPU, RAM, storage and transfer resources depend on the number of slices selected. 

The agent also clarified that I would receive root access with Ubuntu and could manage my software and database. 

As for me, I found the answers informative and helpful, especially as a customer trying to understand what I would get before purchasing.

Ticket Support (Response in 16 minutes)

I also contacted InterServer through ticket support to ask about its data centre locations, whether I could select my preferred server location during checkout or not. 

The team replied with a short message directing me to InterServer’s official data centre page: https://www.interserver.net/about/datacenter/. 

This gives me an official resource to check the available locations, but the reply did not directly answer all the questions or explain whether changing the server location later would be possible. 

Therefore, I found the response useful as a starting point, but not particularly detailed. 

The screenshot shows the ticket was posted on October 10, 2026, at 4:24 PM, while my question was posted at 4:08 PM, indicating a displayed interval of 16 minutes between the two timestamps.

My Overall Experience with InterServer

After testing InterServer’s VPS, checking my WordPress website’s performance, monitoring uptime and contacting the support team, I found both positive points and areas that need improvement. 

Based on my hands-on experience, here’s what I liked and disliked about InterServer, which should give you a clearer picture of its performance, dashboard and customer support before you decide to buy a plan.

What I Liked About InterServer

After testing InterServer’s VPS, monitoring my WordPress website and contacting its support team, I found several things that worked well for me:

• Good desktop performance: My WordPress website scored 92/100 in the desktop PageSpeed test, which gave me a positive first impression of its loading performance.
• No HTTP failures during load testing: The server completed 2,601 requests with zero HTTP failures while the test reached around 20 virtual users.
• 100% uptime during my monitoring period: HetrixTools reported 100% uptime for the period shown in my screenshot, so my website remained accessible throughout that recorded window.
• Strong SSL security rating: The tested endpoint received an A grade in the SSL Labs test and supported TLS 1.3, which was a good sign for secure website connections.
• Useful VPS dashboard controls: I could start, restart or stop the server, check bandwidth usage and access other settings from the client dashboard without searching through several pages.
• Quick live chat response: The support agent replied in around 10 seconds and explained the VPS slice system, root access and software management clearly.
• Useful network and file operation results: My benchmark showed a filesystem small-file I/O score of 9.99 and a network download score of 9.81, while the DNS test returned the same server IP from all four resolvers.

What I Disliked About InterServer

My tests also revealed a few areas that could be better. Although the server handled some tasks well, its results were less consistent in certain database and image-processing operations. 

• Weak results in some benchmark tasks: The complex database query test and one image-processing operation both scored 0, which suggests that these particular tasks may need further investigation.
• Slower results for some regions and mobile users: The mobile PageSpeed score was 85/100, while ping latency reached around 288 ms in Mumbai and 340 ms in Jaipur. Visitors farther from the US server may experience slower responses.
• Limited detail from ticket support: My ticket received a reply in 16 minutes, but the agent referred me to the data centre page rather than directly answering all my questions about location selection and future server relocation.

Verdict in Short: InterServer impressed me with its desktop speed, stable uptime during testing and quick live chat support, but weaker database results, slower responses in some regions and incomplete ticket replies show that there is still a need for improvement.

FAQs