ATEvsLWS
Head-to-head hosting performance comparison based on real test data
Test Date: 2/23/2026
WPTR ScoreWinner680 ms
Rank#195
TTFB515ms
Time to 1MB117ms
Score680
LCP915ms
FCP715ms
WPTR Score2581 ms
Rank#689
TTFB59ms
Time to 1MB1042ms
Score2581
LCP459ms
FCP259ms
Our Verdict
LWS wins with 59ms TTFB (vs ATE's 515ms)
TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)
| Phase | ATE | LWS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNS Lookup | 124ms | 19ms | LWS |
| TCP Connection | 113ms | 21ms | LWS |
| TLS Handshake | 68ms | 16ms | LWS |
| Server Processing | 94ms | 24ms | LWS |
| Total TTFB | 399ms | 80ms | LWS |
Technology & Security Features
ATE
Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size300.4 KB
LWS
Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size8.8 KB
2/3
ATE Security Features
2/3
LWS 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.