GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

DEBitPointvsMittwaldDE

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

Test Date: 2/23/2026

BitPoint
WPTR ScoreWinner800 ms
Rank#355
TTFB593ms
Time to 1MB243ms
Score800
LCP993ms
FCP793ms
Mittwald
WPTR Score1700 ms
Rank#496
TTFB204ms
Time to 1MB604ms
Score1700
LCP604ms
FCP404ms

Our Verdict

Mittwald wins with 204ms TTFB (vs BitPoint's 593ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseBitPointMittwaldWinner
DNS Lookup53ms49msMittwald
TCP Connection40ms57msBitPoint
TLS Handshake38ms58msBitPoint
Server Processing86ms86msTie
Total TTFB217ms250msMittwald

Technology & Security Features

BitPoint

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size55.9 KB

Mittwald

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size154.3 KB
1/3
BitPoint Security Features
1/3
Mittwald 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.