GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

FRAzur ITvsProginovFR

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

Azur IT
WPTR ScoreWinner1169 ms
Rank#276
TTFB153ms
Time to 1MB366ms
Score1169
LCP553ms
FCP353ms
Proginov
WPTR Score3501 ms
Rank#672
TTFB2034ms
Time to 1MB264ms
Score3501
LCP2434ms
FCP2234ms

Our Verdict

Azur IT wins with 153ms TTFB (vs Proginov's 2034ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseAzur ITProginovWinner
DNS Lookup120ms2406msAzur IT
TCP Connection14ms303msAzur IT
TLS Handshake50ms63msAzur IT
Server Processing107ms95msProginov
Total TTFB291ms2867msAzur IT

Technology & Security Features

Azur IT

Server/CDNPepyaka
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size1088.2 KB

Proginov

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size37.6 KB
3/3
Azur IT Security Features
0/3
Proginov 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.