GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

trCenutavsTrunçgiltr

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Cenuta
WPTR ScoreWinner1265 ms
Rank#264
TTFB327ms
Time to 1MB252ms
Score1265
LCP727ms
FCP527ms
Trunçgil
WPTR Score2045 ms
Rank#559
TTFB458ms
Time to 1MB635ms
Score2045
LCP858ms
FCP658ms

Our Verdict

Cenuta wins with 327ms TTFB (vs Trunçgil's 458ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseCenutaTrunçgilWinner
DNS Lookup112ms34msTrunçgil
TCP Connection50ms39msTrunçgil
TLS Handshake171ms26msTrunçgil
Server Processing327ms422msCenuta
Total TTFB660ms521msCenuta

Technology & Security Features

Cenuta

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

Trunçgil

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size73.8 KB
3/3
Cenuta Security Features
1/3
Trunçgil 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.