GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

FRATEvsEEnovFR

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

ATE
WPTR Score4087 ms
Rank#772
TTFB614ms
Time to 1MB1498ms
Score4087
LCP1014ms
FCP814ms
EEnov
WPTR ScoreWinner1404 ms
Rank#359
TTFB339ms
Time to 1MB382ms
Score1404
LCP739ms
FCP539ms

Our Verdict

EEnov wins with 339ms TTFB (vs ATE's 614ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseATEEEnovWinner
DNS Lookup125ms124msEEnov
TCP Connection189ms64msEEnov
TLS Handshake75ms64msEEnov
Server Processing103ms235msATE
Total TTFB492ms487msEEnov

Technology & Security Features

ATE

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size300.4 KB

EEnov

Server/CDNApache/2.4.52 (Ubunt
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size507.2 KB
2/3
ATE Security Features
1/3
EEnov 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.