GitHub|Since 2007

GBBridgeallvsRamsacGB

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner2486 ms
Rank#624
TTFB729ms
Time to 1MB724ms
Score2486
LCP1129ms
FCP929ms
WPTR Score2782 ms
Rank#688
TTFB1125ms
Time to 1MB725ms
Score2782
LCP1525ms
FCP1325ms

Our Verdict

Bridgeall wins with 729ms TTFB (vs Ramsac's 1125ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseBridgeallRamsacWinner
DNS Lookup144ms62msRamsac
TCP Connection111ms14msRamsac
TLS Handshake71ms17msRamsac
Server Processing422ms949msBridgeall
Total TTFB748ms1042msBridgeall

Technology & Security Features

Bridgeall

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size148.0 KB

Ramsac

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size129.0 KB
0/3
Bridgeall Security Features
3/3
Ramsac 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.