GitHub|Since 2007

US2nd WatchvsColoGuardUS

Head-to-head hosting performance comparison based on real test data

Test Date: 2/23/2026

WPTR Score70355 ms
Rank#915
TTFB168ms
Time to 1MB29174ms
Score70355
LCP568ms
FCP368ms
WPTR ScoreWinner3645 ms
Rank#736
TTFB395ms
Time to 1MB1172ms
Score3645
LCP795ms
FCP595ms

Our Verdict

2nd Watch wins with 168ms TTFB (vs ColoGuard's 395ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

Phase2nd WatchColoGuardWinner
DNS Lookup97ms91msColoGuard
TCP Connection134ms5msColoGuard
TLS Handshake44ms12msColoGuard
Server Processing62ms724ms2nd Watch
Total TTFB337ms832ms2nd Watch

Technology & Security Features

2nd Watch

Server/CDNCloudFront
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size0.9 KB

ColoGuard

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size117.2 KB
1/3
2nd Watch Security Features
1/3
ColoGuard Security Features

TTFB Comparison Over Time

Understanding the Metrics

WPTR Score: Wptr Lab Real-Load Score: (Time to 1MB x 2.4) + TTFB. Raw server & network performance (Lower is better).
TTFB: Time to First Byte - How fast the server responds
Time to 1MB: Time to 1MB - Time taken to download 1MB of data (lower is better)
LCP: Largest Contentful Paint - When main content loads
FCP: First Contentful Paint - When first content appears
Score: Overall performance score (0-100)

A Note on Hosting Selection

While TTFB and performance metrics are important indicators, choosing the right hosting provider involves many other factors: security measures, customer support quality, uptime guarantees, scalability options, and pricing structure. Academic research emphasizes that a balanced approach considering all these aspects leads to better long-term outcomes.

Chizhov, A., & Fesenko, A. (2025). Web hosting companies' client solutions: A study of a strategic standpoint. Corporate & Business Strategy Review. doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv6i1art14

Data in this comparison is obtained through independent tests using our TTFB Checker tool.