GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

SIClostevsSi-Shellsi

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
Si-Shell
WPTR ScoreWinner696 ms
Rank#326
TTFB680ms
Time to 1MB172ms
Score696
LCP1080ms
FCP880ms

Our Verdict

Closte wins with 42ms TTFB (vs Si-Shell's 680ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseClosteSi-ShellWinner
DNS Lookup79ms104msCloste
TCP Connection49ms48msSi-Shell
TLS Handshake21ms46msCloste
Server Processing151ms85msSi-Shell
Total TTFB300ms283msCloste

Technology & Security Features

Closte

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

Si-Shell

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size0.0 KB
2/3
Closte Security Features
2/3
Si-Shell 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.