| Date | Total Shared IPs | Bad Shared IPs | Total IPs Downtime | Affected Sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-08 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-07 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-06 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-05 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-04 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-03 | - | - | - | - |
| 2025-05-02 | - | - | - | - |
| Month | HRANK | # in TOP | Uptime, % | Response, ms | Sites, +(-) | Shared IPs, +(-) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2025 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Mar 2025 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Feb 2025 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Jan 2025 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Dec 2024 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Nov 2024 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
| Year | HRANK | # in TOP | Uptime, % | Response, ms | Sites, +(-) | Shared IPs, +(-) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 3.6 | 176 | 99.295 | 718 | -918 | -1 |
| 2019 | 4.1 | 184 | 99.596 | 615 | +1,162 | +5 |
| 2020 | 5.1 | 114 | 99.863 | 610 | +387 | +1 |
| 2021 | 4.3 | 139 | 99.811 | 717 | -444 | -3 |
| 2022 | 6.2 | 102 | 99.932 | 718 | -602 | -3 |
| 2023 | 7.0 | 58 | 99.953 | 668 | -1,065 | -2 |
| 2024 | N/A | - | N/A | N/A | - | - |
QHoster.com Review
visit provider
Background
Business Name: Legendary Tech Enterprises S.A.
Year of foundation: 2004
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
BBB Accreditation: No
Market Size: > 1.4K websites (#116 in HRank list)
Growth Status: (by websites quantity): Decreasing
According to their web pages, their geo locations include USA, Canada, Russia, France, Germany, and several other countries, making up 13 in total.
Offers and Pricing
| Name | Domains | Disk | Bandwidth | Min Price | Billing Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mini | 1 | 10 Gb | Unlim | $1.95 | 36 Mo |
| Pro | Unlim | 150 Gb | Unlim | $4.95 | 36 Mo |
| Biz | Unlim | 250 Gb | Unlim | $9.95 | 36 Mo |
There are 3 shared plans on offer and they can be purchased for a month, 3 months, 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years.
The most beneficial option is the one in the table above, the prices for a 36-month payment period. Monthly prices are more expensive and are only available for Pro and Biz plans – $6.44/mo and $12.94/mo.
The plans offer a shared SSL certificate in the pack and if your project is an e-commerce one, it is an option for you. Also, if you take a Biz plan, a free private SSL certificate will be provided to you with a dedicated IP address. Not bad.
The company also offers:
- cPanel Reseller Hosting,
- Virtual Servers (VPS),
- Dedicated Servers.
QHoster.com has a variety of other services that usually accompany hosting, such as SSL certificates, domain name registration, etc.
Support
Instant Technical Live Support: No
As to customer support, you can submit tickets and call them, as well as use the knowledgebase.
They have a live chat on their website, however, it does not seem to be active and it is only for sales questions. Thus, the provider doesn’t get an additional point from us here.
Theoretically, they could be a reliable company. But it turns out that many people have problems when they become QHoster’s customers.
We’ve seen the Internet teeming with negative reviews in which people report that the company takes the money and suspends your website several days after that, with no customer support at all, as their questions remain unanswered. There are a couple of positive reviews but they are heavily outnumbered by those written by angry customers who (allegedly?) lost their money. Their tarnished reputation is difficult to ignore when an overview of their business is required.
Well, it is hard to say whether the reviews are all real, however, the company’s rating and performance have left much to be desired recently, so, maybe they are.
QHoster Summary Analysis by HRank
QHoster.com scored only 3.6 HRank with us in 2018. Their position in our list was therefore only the 176th; and 4.1 HRank with 184th position in 2018.
First of all, not entirely stable uptime picture was the main reason for low rank. Certain instability was also accompanied by several downtimes of 81% and 92%.
Secondly, its response time was very average either: it mostly stayed between 700ms – 800ms. As with the uptime chart, where some instability was observed, here it was even worse.
