GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

SIClostevsNeoservsi

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

Test Date: 2/23/2026

Closte
WPTR Score1301 ms
Rank#306
TTFB42ms
Time to 1MB417ms
Score1301
LCP442ms
FCP242ms
Neoserv
WPTR ScoreWinner1289 ms
Rank#449
TTFB836ms
Time to 1MB248ms
Score1289
LCP1236ms
FCP1036ms

Our Verdict

Closte wins with 42ms TTFB (vs Neoserv's 836ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseClosteNeoservWinner
DNS Lookup79ms16msNeoserv
TCP Connection49ms51msCloste
TLS Handshake21ms88msCloste
Server Processing151ms539msCloste
Total TTFB300ms694msCloste

Technology & Security Features

Closte

Server/CDNLiteSpeed
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size64.8 KB

Neoserv

Server/CDNnginx/1.10.3 (Ubuntu
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size280.6 KB
2/3
Closte Security Features
0/3
Neoserv 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.