GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

GBClaranetvsFifosysGB

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

Claranet
WPTR Score5343 ms
Rank#809
TTFB485ms
Time to 1MB2029ms
Score5343
LCP885ms
FCP685ms
Fifosys
WPTR ScoreWinner4873 ms
Rank#799
TTFB469ms
Time to 1MB1903ms
Score4873
LCP869ms
FCP669ms

Our Verdict

Fifosys wins with 469ms TTFB (vs Claranet's 485ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseClaranetFifosysWinner
DNS Lookup65ms137msClaranet
TCP Connection229ms56msFifosys
TLS Handshake62ms56msFifosys
Server Processing117ms57msFifosys
Total TTFB473ms306msFifosys

Technology & Security Features

Claranet

Server/CDNwadp2
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size114.0 KB

Fifosys

Server/CDNSquarespace
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size228.3 KB
0/3
Claranet Security Features
1/3
Fifosys 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.