GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

NLAntagonistvsExonetNL

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

Antagonist
WPTR Score1060 ms
Rank#264
TTFB225ms
Time to 1MB316ms
Score1060
LCP625ms
FCP425ms
Exonet
WPTR ScoreWinner937 ms
Rank#209
TTFB252ms
Time to 1MB241ms
Score937
LCP652ms
FCP452ms

Our Verdict

Antagonist wins with 225ms TTFB (vs Exonet's 252ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseAntagonistExonetWinner
DNS Lookup106ms131msAntagonist
TCP Connection47ms57msAntagonist
TLS Handshake61ms61msTie
Server Processing88ms110msAntagonist
Total TTFB302ms359msAntagonist

Technology & Security Features

Antagonist

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size122.3 KB

Exonet

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size88.9 KB
1/3
Antagonist Security Features
1/3
Exonet 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.