GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

trCenutavsNatrotr

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Cenuta
WPTR Score1265 ms
Rank#264
TTFB327ms
Time to 1MB252ms
Score1265
LCP727ms
FCP527ms
Natro
WPTR ScoreWinner713 ms
Rank#183
TTFB333ms
Time to 1MB172ms
Score713
LCP733ms
FCP533ms

Our Verdict

Cenuta wins with 327ms TTFB (vs Natro's 333ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseCenutaNatroWinner
DNS Lookup112ms4msNatro
TCP Connection50ms6msNatro
TLS Handshake171ms11msNatro
Server Processing327ms279msNatro
Total TTFB660ms300msCenuta

Technology & Security Features

Cenuta

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size61.4 KB

Natro

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size232.3 KB
3/3
Cenuta Security Features
2/3
Natro 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.