Direct cost control per client: Pay-as-you-go pricing lets agencies size resources precisely per client site, which can be more cost-effective for a portfolio with widely varying traffic levels across clients.

Cloud provider choice: Agencies with specific client requirements around cloud provider (for compliance or client preference reasons) benefit from Cloudways’ flexibility to choose the underlying infrastructure.

Granular server-level control: Technically skilled agency teams that want to fine-tune server settings per client have more direct access to do so than a fully managed alternative typically allows.

Familiar for teams already invested in the ecosystem: Agencies that have already built internal processes and documentation around Cloudways’ specific dashboard and workflow may find the switching cost of moving to a different platform outweighs the operational benefits, at least in the short term.

The deciding factor for most agencies isn’t a feature comparison — it’s whether the team has dedicated technical staff to handle Cloudways’ configuration work across every client site, or whether that time is better spent on client-facing work. Agencies with a technical lead comfortable in server dashboards may prefer Cloudways’ control; agencies where every hour is billable client work often find Kinsta’s reduced overhead pays for itself.

It’s also worth considering how client-facing this decision actually is. Some agencies pass hosting costs directly through to clients as a line item, in which case Cloudways’ usage-based pricing can be easier to justify transparently per client. Others bundle hosting into a broader retainer, where Kinsta’s predictable fixed cost simplifies internal budgeting regardless of which specific client sites are more or less resource-intensive that month.