WP is simple to handle, needs no special requirements, and WP-specific hosting is often more costly than it should perhaps be.
With all hosting, often there's little to choose between similar offers from various hosts, and most of the main ones will have some say they're great while others say they're poor.
With all due respect... 'they were cheap and had good reviews' shouldn't be the basis upon which choice is made... because depending on where the reviews are published, there's likely as many for as those against.
My own factors for choosing include:
1 Is the host stable and likely to still be around for years?
2 What are the specifics of the available service - initially the tech, and also the support?
3 is the price fair? (And that's 'fair', not 'cheaper than others'.)
I'm surprised by how often the value of appropriate service is disregarded... if your website is important to your business (and if you're using a website, then yes it's important), pay for something sensible.
Sure, many get by on ten-quid-a-month deals (although some'll be reluctant to pay even that!), and they often work well - most of the time - until they don't.
Fifty-quid-a-month gets a good dedicated server - so it'll likely have all the speed you'll ever need, enough unrestricted bandwidth, no chance of your site being affected (slowed or offline) by others, and the flexibility to do various other stuff.
For half-that, or less, you can get decent cloud service - yes it's shared, but better than the basic tenner-a-month budget stuff (with all the small print which explains that 'unlimited' is anything but).
Personally, although I've handled a variety of sites/servers for previous clients (often on too-cheap-to-be-any-good packages), for years I've had a dedi-server with 1&1. (Cue howls of disgust from those who've had poor experience with them.)
The tech specs and reliability are good, and support is usually excellent (and when it's not, raising a gripe usually gets it quickly sorted) - people who know what they're doing rather than reading a script.
Yes, I pay more than I could (I could get by with less capacity and features) - and consider the extra to be worthwhile, compared to potentially having to switch host because of inappropriate service.
