AntagonistvsHoasted
Head-to-head hosting performance comparison based on real test data
Test Date: 2/24/2026

Antagonist
View Details →
Hoasted
View Details →Our Verdict
Hoasted wins with 200ms TTFB (vs Antagonist's 225ms)
TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)
| Phase | Antagonist | Hoasted | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNS Lookup | 106ms | 35ms | Hoasted |
| TCP Connection | 47ms | 67ms | Antagonist |
| TLS Handshake | 61ms | 66ms | Antagonist |
| Server Processing | 88ms | 64ms | Hoasted |
| Total TTFB | 302ms | 232ms | Hoasted |
Technology & Security Features
Antagonist
Hoasted
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.