Platform

Compare

Hosting comparison slice.

Infrastructure posture

Hosting comparison slice.

Factor	AngryPages Baseline	Akamai / Linode	OO OVHcloud	HH Hetzner	DD DigitalOcean	VV Vultr	CC Cloudflare	AA AWS	GC Google Cloud	MA Microsoft Azure	Cloudways	HH Hostinger	NN Namecheap	BB Bluehost	GG GoDaddy	Self-hosted WordPress	SS Static site + CMS stack	Custom Django app	Self-hosted Ghost
Insights	We partner you, not just host you. Wide UAP.	Serious cloud and network pedigree. Still infrastructure-first: AUP review and account discretion remain real.	Strong infrastructure value. Infrastructure-first, not publisher-first: legal risk, abuse handling, backups, and restore judgment stay yours.	Strong value and serious bare-metal/VPS lane. Cold weakness: strict operations culture and no publishing partnership.	Developer-friendly cloud. Cold weakness: simple VPS does not solve legal, abuse, backup, or publisher judgment.	Fast commodity cloud. Cold weakness: good servers, but no archive business, no editorial judgment, and no continuity runbook by default.	Excellent edge, DNS, CDN, and object-storage lane. Cold weakness: the route itself can become the choke point.	Infrastructure giant. Cold weakness: abuse desks, account risk, and policy gates are not publisher partnership.	Broad, harsh AUP posture with automated review exposure. Strong infrastructure, weak trust posture for sensitive publishing continuity.	Enterprise compliance first. Good for corporate workloads, weak for edgy publisher confidence.	Good managed-hosting deal. Cold weakness: still a wrapper around someone else's cloud plus your app stack.	Mass-market web hosting. Cold weakness: good for simpler sites, weaker for high-stakes database continuity.	Domains plus budget hosting. Cold weakness: useful utility layer, not a high-stakes publishing partner.	Mass-market WordPress hosting. Cold weakness: convenient, but generic and not built for sensitive archive survival.	Domain and mass-hosting lane. Cold weakness: account and product sprawl, weak fit for serious publisher continuity.	You run the machine yourself. Good luck.	Fast until it breaks. You run the machine yourself.	Best control, highest burden. You run the machine yourself.	Cleaner writer stack. You still run the machine yourself.
Pricing	We're Free to publish with ads	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	Official pricing page says managed cloud servers start at $11/month	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	No public pricing note added here.	Example stack: DigitalOcean starts at $4/mo Pressable single-site starts at $25/mo	Example stack: Netlify starts at $0 Sanity starts at $0 Growth at $15/seat/mo	Render web starts at $0 $7/mo Render Postgres starts at $0/mo	Example stack: DigitalOcean starts at $4/mo Fly shared CPU starts around $2.02-2.33/mo before storage/email
Deal	We offer 80% of sales, and 50/50% of ads
Primary job	Score: 9/10 Publishing partner, archive home, reader surface, and continuity-minded product	Score: 6/10 Cloud compute and global delivery/network services	Score: 6/10 European cloud, VPS, bare metal, storage, and managed infrastructure	Score: 6/10 German VPS, dedicated server, storage, and cloud infrastructure	Score: 6/10 Developer cloud for droplets, managed databases, app hosting, and storage	Score: 6/10 Global VPS, cloud compute, bare metal, and managed database infrastructure	Score: 6/10 Edge network, DNS, CDN, security, Workers, R2, and internet performance layer	Score: 6/10 Largest broad cloud platform for compute, storage, databases, networking, and enterprise workloads	Score: 6/10 General cloud infrastructure across compute, storage, database, AI, and enterprise services	Score: 6/10 Microsoft enterprise cloud for compute, database, identity, AI, and corporate infrastructure	Score: 6/10 Managed hosting dashboard around cloud servers, especially WordPress/PHP stacks	Score: 6/10 Shared hosting, VPS, website builder, domains, and managed WordPress	Score: 6/10 Domains, hosting, email, SSL, and budget web utilities	Score: 6/10 Shared hosting, WordPress hosting, domains, and small-business website packages	Score: 6/10 Domains, hosting, email, web builder, and small-business web services	Score: 6/10 Self-run WordPress site, plugins, theme, database, and hosting	Score: 6/10 Self-assembled static site, CMS, hosting, search, and access stack	Score: 6/10 Self-built custom application, database, billing, search, and support stack	Score: 6/10 Self-run Ghost publication stack
AUP / takedown risk	Score: 9/10 We use judgment: hard speech is not automatically abuse, but legal, safety, sexual-exploitation, and hostile-abuse lines are refusal points	Score: 8/10 Stronger infrastructure posture than many budget hosts, but AUP discretion still controls the account	Score: 4/10 Usually attractive for infrastructure independence, but complaints and legal process are still your problem	Score: 5/10 Strict abuse posture excellent servers do not equal publisher protection	Score: 5/10 Straightforward cloud AUP abuse-ticket risk remains yours to handle	Score: 5/10 Commodity cloud AUP useful host, not a speech-risk partner	Score: 8/10 Strong network layer, but reports or policy risk can affect DNS, CDN, R2, or edge routing	Score: 5/10 Broad cloud AUP abuse reports and account controls can override your publishing urgency	Score: 5/10 Broad policy and automated review exposure make it hard to treat as a sensitive-publishing home	Score: 5/10 Enterprise risk/compliance culture first speech edge cases are not the product	Score: 5/10 You inherit Cloudways policy plus upstream cloud and app-layer risk	Score: 5/10 Mass-market policies are not designed for controversial archive disputes	Score: 5/10 Better as utility infrastructure not a publisher-risk shield	Score: 5/10 Mass-market policies can be uncomfortable for high-risk editorial disputes	Score: 5/10 Domain/hosting policy and account-control risk can matter fast when complaints arrive	Score: 5/10 You own hosting abuse tickets, plugin risk, security, and legal escalation	Score: 5/10 You own hosting abuse tickets, build-chain risk, and legal escalation	Score: 5/10 You own every policy, abuse, security, and legal escalation path	Score: 5/10 You own hosting abuse tickets, stack risk, and legal escalation
Database fit	Score: 9/10 The product is built around a living archive database, not just rented compute	Score: 5/10 Good VPS and managed database fit for a practical Postgres deployment	Score: 5/10 Good VPS/dedicated/managed database fit if operations are disciplined	Score: 5/10 Good self-managed Postgres value you carry backup and failover discipline	Score: 5/10 Good managed Postgres and droplet path for developer teams	Score: 5/10 Good VPS/managed database path, but operational responsibility remains high	Score: 5/10 Good edge data products, but not the obvious master Postgres home for this stack	Score: 8/10 Very strong database menu operational power is excellent but not simple	Score: 8/10 Strong managed database options, but platform dependence is high	Score: 5/10 Strong Microsoft/Postgres/SQL database lanes, best for enterprise teams	Score: 5/10 Database fit depends on the managed app/server stack underneath	Score: 5/10 Better for ordinary sites than mission-critical archive databases	Score: 5/10 Better for domains and simple hosting than archive database operations	Score: 5/10 Better for WordPress/small-business hosting than serious archive database control	Score: 3/10 Weak fit for high-stakes Postgres archive operations	Score: 5/10 WordPress database can work, but plugin and backup discipline become the business	Score: 3/10 Usually weak for a living database archive unless heavily custom-built	Score: 6/10 Best possible database fit if the engineering and operations are serious	Score: 3/10 Good for publication content, weaker for a custom story/archive database
File/media fit	Score: 9/10 Media and proof artifacts belong beside the archive, with publisher context	Score: 5/10 Solid object storage and delivery options, especially with Akamai network context	Score: 5/10 Good storage options, less polished than hyperscale clouds	Score: 5/10 Useful storage-box/value lane, but restoration discipline is on you	Score: 5/10 Spaces is straightforward for app media, but not a full archive product	Score: 5/10 Object storage works, but media governance remains yours	Score: 8/10 R2 is strong for object storage and CDN-adjacent media delivery	Score: 8/10 Strong S3/storage strong tool, but not a publisher context layer	Score: 8/10 Strong storage, but sensitive files sit inside Google's ecosystem risk	Score: 5/10 Strong blob/storage lane for enterprise teams	Score: 5/10 Media fit depends on app configuration and upstream storage choices	Score: 3/10 Fine for small site media, weak for evidence-heavy archive operations	Score: 5/10 Utility fit for simple assets not a deep media archive lane	Score: 3/10 Fine for normal web assets, weak for serious archive-media workflows	Score: 3/10 Fine for ordinary site files, weak for high-stakes proof/media archive handling	Score: 6/10 Possible with plugins and storage wiring you carry the fragility	Score: 5/10 Good for simple assets, brittle for evidence-heavy archive workflows	Score: 5/10 Can be excellent if object storage, moderation, and backups are built well	Score: 5/10 Good for publication media, not automatically proof-archive media
Continuity	Score: 9/10 Continuity is a product concern: publish, back up, restore, and keep the reader route understandable	Score: 5/10 Good practical continuity candidate, especially as a non-Google lane	Score: 5/10 Good independence lane if backups and restore are tested	Score: 5/10 Good low-cost failover lane if you run it seriously	Score: 5/10 Good standby/developer lane, but not enough by itself	Score: 5/10 Useful secondary provider, but do not rely on it alone	Score: 5/10 Excellent for routing and edge continuity, risky if it becomes the only route	Score: 3/10 Technically strongest, but complexity and account dependency are real continuity risks	Score: 8/10 Technically strong, but account/platform concentration is the continuity risk	Score: 8/10 Strong enterprise continuity, but heavy if the business is a publisher archive	Score: 5/10 Can simplify operations, but adds another control layer to the continuity chain	Score: 5/10 Continuity posture is too consumer/site-builder shaped for the core archive	Score: 3/10 Useful domain/vendor lane, weak as the continuity center	Score: 5/10 Continuity posture is too generic-host shaped for the core archive	Score: 3/10 Useful domain/vendor lane, weak as the continuity center	Score: 5/10 Continuity depends on your patching, backups, plugins, and restore discipline	Score: 5/10 Continuity is good only while the build pipeline and content system stay simple	Score: 8/10 Continuity can be strongest, but only if engineering owns it seriously	Score: 5/10 Continuity depends on your hosting, updates, backups, and theme/plugin choices

Publisher business

Hosting comparison slice.

Factor	AngryPages Baseline	Akamai / Linode	OO OVHcloud	HH Hetzner	DD DigitalOcean	VV Vultr	CC Cloudflare	AA AWS	GC Google Cloud	MA Microsoft Azure	Cloudways	HH Hostinger	NN Namecheap	BB Bluehost	GG GoDaddy	Self-hosted WordPress	SS Static site + CMS stack	Custom Django app	Self-hosted Ghost
Publisher partnership	Score: 9/10 We can make judgment calls with the publisher instead of treating the work as only an abuse ticket	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership serious host/network provider	Score: 8/10 No publisher partnership strong infrastructure vendor	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership infrastructure only	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership developer infrastructure	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership infrastructure only	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership excellent internet layer, but not editorial support	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you are an infrastructure customer	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you are a cloud account	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you are an enterprise/cloud tenant	Score: 5/10 Managed hosting support, not publisher judgment	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership website host	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership domain and web vendor	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership website host	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership domain and web vendor	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you are the publisher, host, admin, and support desk	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you assemble and defend the stack yourself	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you become the software company	Score: 5/10 No publisher partnership you run the publication stack yourself
Portability	Score: 9/10 The right posture is exportable content, encrypted backups, and a plan to move providers fast	Score: 5/10 More portable when used as VPS/Postgres/object storage rather than proprietary glue	Score: 7/10 Good portability if you keep backups, configs, and restore scripts clean	Score: 5/10 Good portability if self-managed and documented	Score: 5/10 Good portability if droplets/databases are backed up and not over-coupled	Score: 5/10 Good portability if used plainly and backed up well	Score: 5/10 Portable if DNS, R2, Workers, and edge assumptions are kept replaceable	Score: 5/10 Portable if engineered for it service lock-in can build quietly	Score: 5/10 Portable if engineered for it not portable by default	Score: 5/10 Portable if engineered for it Microsoft ecosystem lock-in can build quietly	Score: 5/10 Portable only if the app, database, and upstream cloud are kept separable	Score: 3/10 Portable for simple sites, weaker for complex app/database stacks	Score: 5/10 Domain portability is useful hosting portability is ordinary	Score: 3/10 Portable for simple WordPress sites, weaker for custom archive stacks	Score: 5/10 Domain portability matters hosting portability is ordinary but not strategic	Score: 7/10 Portable if backups, plugins, media, and hosting configs are kept clean	Score: 5/10 Portable if content exports and build scripts stay simple	Score: 5/10 Portable if the app is documented, backed up, and not tied to one provider	Score: 7/10 Portable if Ghost exports, themes, media, and backups stay clean
Best use	Score: 9/10 Archive home and publishing partner first	Score: 5/10 Use as a practical non-Google cloud lane or standby	Score: 5/10 Use as a strong independence/value lane with tested backups	Score: 5/10 Use as a low-cost VPS/dedicated/standby lane with disciplined operations	Score: 5/10 Use for simple developer infrastructure and managed Postgres	Score: 5/10 Use for secondary compute or simple VPS deployments	Score: 3/10 Use for DNS, CDN, edge security, R2, and performance, not as the only dependency	Score: 5/10 Use for serious infrastructure when the team can handle complexity and lock-in risk	Score: 5/10 Use for selected infrastructure only if backups and exit routes are already proven	Score: 5/10 Use for Microsoft-heavy enterprise environments	Score: 5/10 Use if you want managed hosting help around a separate WordPress/PHP site	Score: 5/10 Use for basic sites, not the core high-stakes archive	Score: 5/10 Use for domains and utility hosting	Score: 5/10 Use for basic WordPress/small-business sites	Score: 5/10 Use for domains and basic web utilities, not the core archive	Score: 5/10 Use only if you want to run the whole WordPress machine yourself	Score: 5/10 Use for smaller brochure/site needs, not the core archive	Score: 5/10 Use only if the custom app itself is the business	Score: 5/10 Use only if you want to run a separate Ghost publication yourself

Sources / References Public references and access dates for the pricing row. Rates can vary by market, plan, and offer.

AngryPages: AngryPages baseline pricing reviewed April 19, 2026.
Cloudways: Official pricing page checked April 19, 2026.
Self-hosted WordPress: Public example infrastructure pricing accessed April 19, 2026; not a universal WordPress stack rate. DigitalOcean Droplets Pressable
Static site + CMS stack: Public example platform pricing accessed April 19, 2026; not a universal static-stack rate. Netlify Sanity
Custom Django app: Public example platform pricing accessed April 19, 2026; custom Django app cost still depends on app shape and traffic. Render pricing Render free tier
Self-hosted Ghost: Public example infrastructure pricing accessed April 19, 2026; not a universal Ghost stack rate. DigitalOcean Droplets Fly.io