GitHub|Since 2007

sebeebytevsFS Datase

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner1988 ms
Rank#590
TTFB527ms
Time to 1MB686ms
Score1988
LCP927ms
FCP727ms
WPTR Score2371 ms
Rank#522
TTFB1490ms
Time to 1MB124ms
Score2371
LCP1890ms
FCP1690ms

Our Verdict

beebyte wins with 527ms TTFB (vs FS Data's 1490ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhasebeebyteFS DataWinner
DNS Lookup85ms6msFS Data
TCP Connection72ms15msFS Data
TLS Handshake73ms20msFS Data
Server Processing112ms2032msbeebyte
Total TTFB342ms2073msbeebyte

Technology & Security Features

beebyte

Server/CDNApache/2.4.41 (Ubunt
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size157.2 KB

FS Data

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size239.6 KB
0/3
beebyte Security Features
1/3
FS Data 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.