# FlyingPress vs LiteSpeed Cache in 2026: The Free Plugin Is a Bridge to a Cache Engine You May Not Own

> LiteSpeed Cache lists 40 features and 16 of them need a LiteSpeed server. On Nginx the page cache lives at QUIC.cloud, and its free credit is sized by your host.

- Published: 2026-09-30
- Updated: 2026-10-04
- Author: xSpeed Cache Team
- Tags: FlyingPress, LiteSpeed Cache, Comparison, Caching, CDN, platform:wordpress, check:D2
- Canonical: https://xspeedcache.com/blog/flyingpress-vs-litespeed-cache/

---

Updated September 2026

[LiteSpeed Cache](https://wordpress.org/plugins/litespeed-cache/) runs on 7,000,000+ WordPress sites and costs nothing, per a wordpress.org Plugin API query on 30 September 2026. FlyingPress is not in the plugin directory at all, so no install count for it exists, and it starts at $59 a year. That looks like the whole story until you read LiteSpeed's own readme, which sorts its features into 24 that work anywhere and 16 that require a LiteSpeed server. Automatic page caching is in the second group. The comparison people expect is free against paid. The more useful comparison is where each plugin's cached HTML physically sits, and who bills you for the distance between that copy and your visitor. This article answers that for a site on Nginx or Apache.

## Quick Summary: Which One, and What It Actually Costs

| If you want… | Do this | Why |
|:---|:---|:---|
| A page cache on LiteSpeed hosting or OpenLiteSpeed | LiteSpeed Cache | The engine is already in your server. Nothing is metered and the plugin is free. |
| A page cache on Nginx or Apache, tiny traffic | LiteSpeed Cache with the QUIC.cloud Free plan | Unlimited bandwidth, but only 6 points of presence, all in the USA and EU. |
| A page cache on Nginx or Apache that must never stop | FlyingPress | The cache is a file on your own server. No third party can switch it off. |
| Global delivery over 188 GB a month from Asia or Africa | FlyingPress with FlyingCDN | $10 a month for 100 GB beats $0.08 per GB past that point. See the chart below. |
| Cheap global delivery in North America or Europe | LiteSpeed Cache with QUIC.cloud Standard | $0.02 per GB is cheaper than any flat fee at every volume we modelled. |
| To stop paying for the edge and keep the cache | Any plugin that writes HTML to your own disk | A local cache survives every billing event, because no quota sits in front of it. |

Every price, quota and feature count below was fetched from the vendor's own page on 30 September 2026 and is dated where it appears.

## The Plugin Is Free. The Cache Engine Is Sold Separately

LiteSpeed Cache's [readme](https://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/litespeed-cache/trunk/readme.txt) draws the line itself, in its Requirements section:

> **General Features** may be used by anyone with any web server (LiteSpeed, Apache, NGINX, etc.). **LiteSpeed Exclusive Features** require one of the following: OpenLiteSpeed, commercial LiteSpeed products, LiteSpeed-powered hosting, or QUIC.cloud CDN.

Counted from the two bullet lists in that same readme, fetched from plugin SVN today: **24 General Features and 16 LiteSpeed Exclusive Features.** The exclusive sixteen open with "Automatic page caching to greatly improve site performance" and go on to include auto-purge, private cache for logged-in users, REST API caching, separate desktop and mobile caches, cache exclusions by URI, category, tag, cookie and user agent, the preload crawler, WooCommerce support and WP-CLI.

The reason is architectural rather than commercial, and LiteSpeed states it plainly in its own [documentation FAQ](https://docs.litespeedtech.com/lscache/lscwp/faq/):

> Cache features require LiteSpeed because the actual caching is handled by LiteSpeed's server-level cache engine, not the plugin itself. The plugin acts as a bridge between WordPress and that engine, communicating caching rules, managing cache entries, and enabling smart features like targeted purging.

That sentence is the whole comparison in miniature. LiteSpeed Cache is a bridge. FlyingPress is the cache. A bridge is excellent value when you already own what is on the other side, and it is a dependency when you do not.

### The escape hatch, and what it is

LiteSpeed publishes one, also verbatim in the readme:

> Don't have a LiteSpeed server? Try our QUIC.cloud CDN service. It allows sites on *any server* (NGINX and Apache included) to experience the power of LiteSpeed caching!

That is a real answer and it works. It also means a site on Nginx that installs the free plugin has moved its page cache onto a third party's network, which is not the arrangement most readers think they are choosing. The next three sections price it.

### What moves when the cache moves

LiteSpeed documents the difference in its own privacy notice, and two consecutive paragraphs there state it more clearly than any comparison could. On LiteSpeed hardware, cached pages "are stored locally on the system where LiteSpeed server software is installed and are not transferred to or accessed by LiteSpeed employees in any way." Switch to the CDN and the wording changes: QUIC.cloud "uses LSCache technology to access your site, and serve your content from remote global nodes."

Neither sentence describes anything improper, and the notice is more forthcoming than most. They simply describe two different systems wearing one plugin name. The same notice adds that the Image Optimization and Page Optimization services transmit data to a remote QUIC.cloud server, which "keeps copies of that data for up to 7 days and then permanently deletes it," and that no visitor data is involved.

So a procurement question about where copies of your pages live has two answers, and which one applies depends on hardware nobody thinks of as part of a plugin. Our [server compatibility documentation](https://xspeedcache.com/docs/server-compatibility/) covers that fork from the other side, and our head-to-head on [WP Rocket versus LiteSpeed Cache](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/wp-rocket-vs-litespeed-cache/) works through what the server header does to a shortlist.

![Three routes to a cached WordPress page: LiteSpeed Cache on LiteSpeed hardware, LiteSpeed Cache on Nginx or Apache via QUIC.cloud, and FlyingPress writing static HTML to your own web server](https://xspeedcache.com/images/blog/flyingpress-litespeed-cache-routes.webp)

## What Each One Actually Ships

FlyingPress lists 15 features on its [features page](https://flyingpress.com/features/). Two of them decide this comparison, and both are quoted below exactly as the page words them.

| Capability | LiteSpeed Cache | FlyingPress |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Licence | Free, GPLv3 | $59 to $279 a year |
| In the wordpress.org directory | Yes, 7,000,000+ installs | No, so no install count exists |
| Page cache on Nginx or Apache | Via QUIC.cloud only | "serve them directly from your web server" |
| Page cache on LiteSpeed hardware | In the server itself | Same as any other host |
| Where HTML is stored by default | LiteSpeed server or QUIC.cloud node | A static file on your disk |
| First-party edge network | QUIC.cloud | [FlyingCDN](https://docs.flyingpress.com/en/articles/11403397-what-is-flyingcdn), on Cloudflare Enterprise |
| Edge HTML caching without paying | Free plan, 6 PoPs | Cloudflare, "for free without APO subscription" |
| Image optimization | Yes, via QUIC.cloud online services | Yes, built in, AVIF or WebP |
| Critical CSS and unused CSS | Yes, via QUIC.cloud online services | Yes, built in |
| Object cache support | Redis, Memcached, LSMCD | Not among its 15 listed features |
| Free trial of the paid product | Not applicable, plugin is free | 14 days, card charged only after |
| Refund policy | Not applicable | None offered, the trial replaces it |

Two rows deserve a note rather than a tick. FlyingPress publishes no active-install figure anywhere we could find, and it is absent from the plugin directory, so anyone quoting a user count for it is quoting an estimate. And LiteSpeed's image optimization and critical CSS are General Features, which means they work on any server, but the readme is equally clear that they are delivered as QUIC.cloud online services rather than computed locally.

### Buying risk runs the opposite way to buying cost

The two also differ on how much it costs to be wrong, and the direction is not the one the prices imply. LiteSpeed Cache carries no purchase risk because there is no purchase: install it, discover your server cannot use half of it, uninstall it, and you are out an afternoon. FlyingPress asks for a card up front and then removes the usual safety net. Its [pricing page](https://flyingpress.com/pricing/) is explicit about the trade: "We offer a 14-day free trial. No refunds needed - pay only if you continue after the trial." So there is no refund window after the trial ends, and the trial is the whole of the protection.

Fourteen days answers the question this article asks, provided you spend them measuring rather than configuring, and the same page confirms that staging and development sites do not count against the licence, so a real before-and-after test needs no second seat. Our own [pricing page](https://xspeedcache.com/pricing/) takes the third position: a 14-day money-back guarantee rather than a trial.

### The part that is genuinely closer than the price tags suggest

Both plugins do minification, lazy loading, font handling, preloading and database cleanup on any web server, and each lists all five on its own features page. On a shortlist built from a feature grid the free plugin wins comfortably, which is exactly why a feature grid is the wrong instrument here. The difference is not what the two can do. It is what happens to the cache when a bill goes unpaid or a quota runs out.

## Both Have a Meter. Only One of Them Stops Serving

Here are the three edge layers a reader can actually buy, with the published rate and the published behaviour at the limit.

![QUIC.cloud Free, QUIC.cloud Standard and FlyingCDN compared on points of presence, bandwidth pricing and what happens when the allowance is exhausted](https://xspeedcache.com/images/blog/quic-cloud-flyingcdn-limits.webp)

QUIC.cloud's Free plan is genuinely free and genuinely unmetered. Its own [pricing page](https://www.quic.cloud/cdn-costs/) describes it as "unlimited bandwidth across selected PoPs and basic security" and puts the node count at **6, in the USA and EU**. Static and dynamic caching are both ticked on the free tier, so it will cache HTML. Seven rows in the plan-comparison table are marked absent on Free. Six are security or access control, namely brute-force defence, XML-RPC restrictions, CAPTCHA, WordPress-specific security measures, access control and traffic management. The seventh is maintenance mode.

The Standard plan opens the full 78-node network and starts charging by region:

| Region | QUIC.cloud Standard, per GB |
|:---|---:|
| North America | $0.02 |
| Europe, excluding Russia | $0.02 |
| Russia | $0.04 |
| Latin America | $0.08 |
| Asia | $0.08 |
| Oceania | $0.08 |
| Middle East | $0.08 |
| Africa | $0.08 |

### The free allowance is sized by the server you are trying to replace

This is the finding that changes the decision, and it sits in a small table below the bandwidth rates on the same page. Complimentary monthly credit under the Standard plan is assigned by tier:

| Tier | Monthly free credit | Stated equivalent |
|:---|---:|:---|
| Basic | $0.02 | 1 GB of North American traffic |
| LiteSpeed Server | $0.10 | 5 GB |
| LiteSpeed Enterprise | $0.20 | 10 GB |
| QUIC.cloud Partner | $0.40 | 20 GB |

QUIC.cloud's [FAQ](https://docs.quic.cloud/faq/) says which of those you land in: "The amount of free bandwidth your site receives is controlled by a Tier System, which depends on the site's origin server." A site on Nginx or Apache with no LiteSpeed product and no partner host matches none of the other three tiers, which leaves Basic. The credit does not roll over.

So the allowance runs from 1 GB to 20 GB, a twentyfold spread, and the axis it moves along is whether you already bought the vendor's server or hosting. That is a rational loyalty scheme and it is not hidden. It is also the exact inverse of what a reader choosing the free plugin *because* they are not on LiteSpeed is likely to assume. Worth noting for fairness: the same pricing page separately states that "Each domain gets up to 20GB of free bandwidth every month," which the tier table does not reconcile. The FAQ's wording and the tier table agree with each other, so treat 20 GB as the ceiling of the range rather than the default.

### What exhaustion does, in each vendor's own words

QUIC.cloud's FAQ:

> Under the Standard Plan, if you exceed your allotted free bandwidth quota before the end of the month (and you have not purchased PAYG quota), the CDN will be bypassed automatically and visitor requests will be directed to your domain's origin server.

FlyingCDN's [billing document](https://docs.flyingpress.com/en/articles/11403515-flyingcdn-billing-and-pricing), dated 29 October 2025:

> FlyingCDN is charged at $10 per domain per month. This includes 100GB bandwidth. Additional bandwidth costs $5 per 100GB.

Both sentences describe a limit. They describe two different events. FlyingCDN's limit moves an invoice up one $5 step and keeps serving. QUIC.cloud's limit switches the CDN off and sends every visitor to the origin, and on Nginx or Apache that origin has no page cache, because page caching is one of the sixteen exclusive features. The fallback is not a slower cached page. It is an uncached WordPress page, rebuilt by PHP on every request, at your busiest moment of the month.

## The Break-Even Bandwidth: A Framework You Can Run on Your Own Numbers

The two vendors publish enough to compute the crossing point exactly, so here it is rather than a verdict.

![Monthly edge delivery cost against bandwidth for QUIC.cloud Standard in two-cent and eight-cent regions, and FlyingCDN's hundred-gigabyte steps, crossing at 188 GB](https://xspeedcache.com/images/blog/edge-cdn-cost-breakeven.webp)

Model FlyingCDN as $10 for the first 100 GB and $5 for each 100 GB after it, and QUIC.cloud Standard as a flat per-GB rate by region. Then:

| Edge bandwidth per month | QUIC.cloud at $0.02 | QUIC.cloud at $0.08 | FlyingCDN |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 100 GB | $2.00 | $8.00 | $10.00 |
| 188 GB | $3.76 | $15.04 | $15.00 |
| 300 GB | $6.00 | $24.00 | $20.00 |
| 500 GB | $10.00 | $40.00 | $30.00 |

**In the two-cent regions QUIC.cloud never loses.** Its marginal rate is $0.02 per GB against FlyingCDN's effective $0.05, so North American and European traffic is cheaper on QUIC.cloud at every volume, and the gap widens as traffic grows. Anyone whose audience is in those regions and who is comfortable with the bypass behaviour above has a genuinely cheaper edge on the free plugin, and it is not close.

**In the eight-cent regions the lines first cross at 188 GB a month**, where QUIC.cloud bills $15.04 against FlyingCDN's $15.00. Between 188 GB and 400 GB the two alternate as FlyingCDN steps up, and from 401 GB onward FlyingCDN is cheaper at every level. A site serving Asia, Oceania, Africa, the Middle East or Latin America crosses that line at a traffic volume a small business reaches routinely.

**State the limitations out loud, because three of them matter.** Bandwidth is not pageviews, and neither vendor publishes a conversion, so you must read your own transfer figures rather than estimate from traffic. FlyingCDN counts cached and uncached bytes alike and bills per root domain with all subdomains sharing that allowance. And neither column includes the plugin licence: add $59 a year to every FlyingCDN figure for a single site, and add whatever your LiteSpeed hosting costs to the QUIC.cloud column if that is how you qualified for a better tier.

### The number most sites never measure is the one the model needs

Every figure above is driven by edge bandwidth, the one quantity a WordPress owner is least likely to have, and it is easy to overestimate because a CDN in front of a site is not a CDN answering for it. We measured that gap across 1,748 WordPress sites in September 2026 and published the result: adding a CDN took a median 29ms off time to first byte, while getting the edge to answer the request instead of forwarding it took 298ms off, and three of every five sites on Cloudflare were still sending every page request to the origin. The full dataset is in our study on [CDN adoption and TTFB](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/wordpress-cdn-adoption-ttfb-study/).

That cuts both ways, and the direction matters. A site whose edge forwards everything bills almost no cached bandwidth, which makes the QUIC.cloud column look cheap for a bad reason, and it is also the site getting least from either network. Before pricing an edge, confirm yours caches HTML at all: ordinary Cloudflare does not by default, which is where our guide to [connecting Cloudflare to a WordPress cache](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/cloudflare-wordpress-cache-setup/) starts.

## Running This Across a Fleet of WordPress Sites

At one site the arithmetic above is a rounding error either way. At twenty-five it decides the architecture, because FlyingCDN bills per root domain and QUIC.cloud assigns a tier per domain, so both models multiply rather than pool.

We build xSpeed Cache, so treat this paragraph as a disclosure and not a neutral assessment. Our page cache writes static files that the web server returns before PHP starts, on any standard PHP host, which puts us in the same architectural column as FlyingPress and not in LiteSpeed's. Our free tier covers CDN URL rewriting to a provider you bring, Cloudflare zone connection, authentication and auto-purge, per the [Free vs Pro](https://xspeedcache.com/free-vs-pro/) page, which lists 170 features across 10 areas with 109 in the free plugin as of 30 September 2026. Cloudflare APO, cache level and browser cache TTL are Pro.

**And here is the row we lose outright.** We do not operate an edge network. LiteSpeed has QUIC.cloud and FlyingPress has FlyingCDN, both first-party, both able to hold your HTML in a data centre near your reader. We rewrite asset URLs to a CDN you supply and we integrate with Cloudflare, which is a smaller claim. Checking our own [80-capability comparison](https://xspeedcache.com/comparison/) while writing this piece turned up something worth fixing on our side too: its CDN and Cloudflare section has three rows and none of them asks whether a vendor runs an edge network of its own, which is the single most decision-relevant row in this entire article. That is our gap to close, not a future article's.

For fleet work all three of us leave the edge bill with you, and the one that scales worst is whichever charges per domain when your domains have uneven traffic. A portfolio where one store carries the traffic pays FlyingCDN's $10 minimum on every quiet site; the same portfolio on QUIC.cloud Standard pools nothing but bills the quiet sites almost nothing. Neither rewards a fleet the way a per-account pool would.

Two practical notes for anyone running that comparison across client sites. Browser caching is the layer that reduces edge bandwidth on repeat visits and it is free on every option here, so configure it before pricing anything; our [browser cache documentation](https://xspeedcache.com/docs/browser-cache/) covers the headers worth setting. And store traffic behaves differently from content traffic, because cart, checkout and account pages are excluded from every page cache on this page, so a [WooCommerce store](https://xspeedcache.com/use-cases/woocommerce/) ships a higher share of uncached bytes than a blog of the same size and will cross FlyingCDN's steps sooner than its pageview count suggests. Run the free [xSpeed Scan](https://xspeedcache.com/scan/) against a handful of your sites to see which ones are actually shipping enough bytes to care.

## Common Mistakes Buyers Make Comparing These Two

- ⚖️ **Reading "free" as "free to operate."** The plugin is free and open source forever. Its readme says in the same breath that "there are fees associated with some LiteSpeed server editions" and that QUIC.cloud services "require payment at certain usage levels."
- 🌍 **Comparing per-GB rates without naming a region.** $0.02 and $0.08 are both QUIC.cloud's price. Which one applies is decided by where your readers are, and it is a four-times difference.
- 🔌 **Assuming the fallback is a slower cached page.** On Nginx or Apache, losing QUIC.cloud means losing the page cache entirely, because the page cache is a LiteSpeed Exclusive feature.
- 🧾 **Pricing FlyingPress at $59 and stopping.** FlyingCDN is a separate $10 a month per domain. Cloudflare's free tier is the alternative FlyingPress itself points at.
- 📉 **Trusting an install count that does not exist.** FlyingPress is not in the plugin directory, so any user number quoted for it was estimated by someone. Our [FlyingPress versus WP Rocket comparison](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/flyingpress-vs-wp-rocket/) ran into the same wall and said so.
- 🖥️ **Testing on LiteSpeed hosting and deploying to Nginx.** The plugin behaves like two different products across that line, which is the split our post on [LiteSpeed Cache on Nginx or Apache](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/litespeed-cache-nginx-apache/) measures in detail.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### I installed LiteSpeed Cache on my Nginx server and nothing got cached. What did I do wrong?

Nothing. Automatic page caching is one of the 16 LiteSpeed Exclusive features in the plugin's readme, and it needs OpenLiteSpeed, a commercial LiteSpeed product, LiteSpeed hosting or QUIC.cloud CDN. The minification, lazy loading and database tools you can see in the settings are General Features and are working normally.

### My QUIC.cloud dashboard says my domain is Basic tier. Can I change it?

Only by changing what your origin runs, or by hosting with a QUIC.cloud partner, because the tier is keyed to the origin server. Their FAQ does publish a reassignment procedure for misclassified domains, so if you are on LiteSpeed hosting and still see Basic, raise it with them.

### Is FlyingPress faster than LiteSpeed Cache?

On identical hardware that question has no general answer, and anyone giving you one has tested a configuration rather than a plugin. What is not configuration-dependent: LiteSpeed's cache runs inside the web server on LiteSpeed hardware, which removes a process boundary a PHP-level cache must cross. On Nginx the comparison changes shape entirely, because one of the two is not caching locally at all.

### My site went slow for three days at the end of the month and recovered on the 1st. What happened?

That is the documented signature of an exhausted QUIC.cloud Standard quota. The CDN bypasses itself, sends visitors to your origin, and restores service automatically when the quota refreshes at the start of the next month. Check your QUIC.cloud usage for that month before looking anywhere else.

### Can I run FlyingPress without paying for FlyingCDN?

Yes. The page cache writes static HTML to your own web server and does not depend on the CDN. FlyingPress's own features page offers Cloudflare as the free alternative, describing it as caching "pages in Cloudflare for free without APO subscription."

### I am on LiteSpeed hosting already. Is there any reason to pay for FlyingPress?

Usually not, and this is the clearest recommendation in the article. You already own the cache engine, the plugin that drives it is free, and QUIC.cloud will hand you the LiteSpeed Server tier's larger credit if you want the CDN as well. Spending $59 to move that workload into PHP is a downgrade.

### My FlyingCDN bill went up and my traffic did not. Why?

FlyingCDN counts cached and uncached bandwidth together, so an origin-heavy month with poor cache hit rates can cross a 100 GB step without more visitors. Its documentation also warns that deleting and re-adding a site counts as a new site and may trigger a new charge.

### Which one should I pick for a WooCommerce store on shared hosting?

Neither decision is about the cart. Both exclude dynamic pages, so the real question is this article's: whether your host runs LiteSpeed. If it does not, FlyingPress caches locally and LiteSpeed Cache does not, and that gap matters more on a store than a blog. Our guide to [free WordPress caching plugins](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/free-wordpress-caching-plugins/) sorts the field by the same test.

### Does QUIC.cloud's free plan really have no bandwidth limit?

Its pricing page says "unlimited bandwidth across selected PoPs" and lists the cost as free with "no hidden costs." The constraint is not volume, it is geography and control: 6 nodes across the USA and EU, and seven rows marked absent against the Standard plan, six of them security or access control.

### I compared the two on a feature grid and LiteSpeed Cache won easily. Is the grid wrong?

The grid is accurate and it is answering a question you did not ask. Counting capabilities favours the plugin with 40 of them listed in its readme. Asking where the cached bytes live, who can switch them off and what the bytes cost per region produces a different shortlist, which is the method this article uses.

### How do I tell which caching layer is actually serving my pages right now?

Request the same URL twice and read the response headers. LiteSpeed's cache announces itself with `x-litespeed-cache`, and a QUIC.cloud node will identify itself in the response too. Our [free scan](https://xspeedcache.com/scan/) reports cache evidence as part of its delivery checks, or you can check by hand with `curl -I` if you would rather see the raw headers.

### Does either plugin lock me in?

Both write standard WordPress caches and both can be removed. The switching cost is in the surrounding arrangement rather than the plugin: leaving LiteSpeed hosting silently removes the cache engine your free plugin was driving, which our post on [what changes after a host migration](https://xspeedcache.com/blog/site-slower-after-host-change/) covers in detail.

## Conclusion: FlyingPress or LiteSpeed Cache?

These two are not competing for the same reader. LiteSpeed Cache is the best free option in WordPress for anyone already on a LiteSpeed server, and on that hardware there is no argument to have. FlyingPress answers a narrower question: how to get a page cache and a delivery story on hardware you do not control.

### Expert picks by goal

| Your situation | Pick | The reason in one line |
|:---|:---|:---|
| LiteSpeed or OpenLiteSpeed hosting | LiteSpeed Cache | You already paid for the cache engine. |
| Nginx or Apache, readers in the USA or EU, low traffic | LiteSpeed Cache with QUIC.cloud Free | Unlimited bandwidth from 6 nodes, no card. |
| Nginx or Apache, readers in the USA or EU, high traffic | LiteSpeed Cache with QUIC.cloud Standard | $0.02 per GB undercuts every flat fee we modelled. |
| Nginx or Apache, readers in Asia, Africa or Oceania, over 188 GB | FlyingPress with FlyingCDN | The eight-cent rate passes a flat $10 and keeps climbing. |
| Delivery that must not switch itself off | FlyingPress | The cache is a local file, so no quota can revoke it. |
| A local cache with no edge bill at all | xSpeed Cache free, or another local-file cache | Static files served before PHP, on any standard PHP host. |

**What to do this week:**

1. Run `curl -I` against your own homepage and find your `server` header. Everything above branches on that one line.
2. Pull last month's transfer figure out of your host's dashboard and find your own row in the break-even table.
3. Look up where your readers are. If most of them are outside North America and Europe, the eight-cent rate is your rate.
4. If you are on LiteSpeed hosting, install LiteSpeed Cache and stop reading. It is free, it is excellent, and this article does not apply to you.
5. If you are not, and you want a cache that lives on your own disk with no meter in front of it, try our free plugin or FlyingPress. Ours is $29 a year for Personal with a $79 lifetime option and a 14-day money-back guarantee, and we are 8,000+ installs old against LiteSpeed's 7,000,000+, which is a real reason to prefer either of the other two on track record alone.

If you run this model on your own numbers and get a different crossing point, we would rather hear it than not. The rates are public, the arithmetic is in the table above, and a reader with a real invoice beats a vendor with a spreadsheet.