2nd WatchvsSoftLayer (IBM)
Head-to-head hosting performance comparison based on real test data
Test Date: 2/23/2026

2nd Watch
View Details →
SoftLayer (IBM)
View Details →Our Verdict
2nd Watch wins with 168ms TTFB (vs SoftLayer (IBM)'s 584ms)
TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)
| Phase | 2nd Watch | SoftLayer (IBM) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNS Lookup | 97ms | 1ms | SoftLayer (IBM) |
| TCP Connection | 134ms | 29ms | SoftLayer (IBM) |
| TLS Handshake | 44ms | 31ms | SoftLayer (IBM) |
| Server Processing | 62ms | 191ms | 2nd Watch |
| Total TTFB | 337ms | 252ms | 2nd Watch |
Technology & Security Features
2nd Watch
SoftLayer (IBM)
TTFB Comparison Over Time
Understanding the Metrics
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.