GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

DEBioHostvsContaboDE

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

Test Date: 2/23/2026

BioHost
WPTR Score1300 ms
Rank#425
TTFB619ms
Time to 1MB311ms
Score1300
LCP1019ms
FCP819ms
Contabo
WPTR ScoreWinner362 ms
Rank#61
TTFB196ms
Time to 1MB108ms
Score362
LCP596ms
FCP396ms

Our Verdict

Contabo wins with 196ms TTFB (vs BioHost's 619ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseBioHostContaboWinner
DNS Lookup133ms1msContabo
TCP Connection50ms13msContabo
TLS Handshake69ms17msContabo
Server Processing302ms72msContabo
Total TTFB554ms103msContabo

Technology & Security Features

BioHost

Server/CDNApache/2.4.46 (Ubunt
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size39.0 KB

Contabo

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size2032.0 KB
1/3
BioHost Security Features
3/3
Contabo 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.