Liquid Web vs ScalaHosting

Liquid Web and ScalaHosting occupy the legacy-heavy end of the VPS market, often running on older Intel Xeon hardware that lacks the raw clock speeds found in newer AMD EPYC or high-frequency NVMe-backed providers like Vultr or Hetzner. Liquid Web positions its entry-level instances at $25.00/mo for 2 GB of RAM and 40 GB of storage, scaling up to $99.00/mo for 16 GB of RAM and 480 GB of disk. ScalaHosting starts slightly higher at $29.95/mo but offers a more generous baseline of 4 GB of RAM and 50 GB of storage, topping out at $94.95/mo with 24 GB of RAM and 200 GB of storage.

• Liquid Web caps egress at 10000 GB per month, while ScalaHosting markets their bandwidth as unlimited, which is useful for high-traffic assets.
• Both providers charge an identical $0.10/GB for additional block storage, making them equally expensive for data-heavy workloads.
• ScalaHosting provides a lower egress overage penalty of $0.01/GB compared to Liquid Web’s $0.02/GB rate.
• ScalaHosting scales compute density higher, offering up to 12 vCPU cores, whereas Liquid Web tops out at 8 vCPU cores.

Liquid Web offers significantly more local disk space on its larger tiers, which is the primary reason to choose them for workloads requiring high-density storage on a single instance. Conversely, ScalaHosting provides better value for memory-intensive applications that require more vCPU cycles and have high bandwidth demands. Neither provider includes managed extras or sophisticated control planes, leaving the underlying OS management and network configuration entirely to the engineering team. The choice between these two hinges on whether your infrastructure requires the massive disk allocation of Liquid Web or the superior RAM-to-cost ratio and higher core counts provided by ScalaHosting.