GitHub|Since 2007

esComvivevsHostinetes

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR Score7769 ms
Rank#840
TTFB414ms
Time to 1MB2920ms
Score7769
LCP814ms
FCP614ms
WPTR ScoreWinner2102 ms
Rank#585
TTFB542ms
Time to 1MB672ms
Score2102
LCP942ms
FCP742ms

Our Verdict

Comvive wins with 414ms TTFB (vs Hostinet's 542ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseComviveHostinetWinner
DNS Lookup537ms216msHostinet
TCP Connection60ms68msComvive
TLS Handshake62ms138msComvive
Server Processing102ms67msHostinet
Total TTFB761ms489msComvive

Technology & Security Features

Comvive

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size120.1 KB

Hostinet

Server/CDNApache/2.4.25 (Debia
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size154.0 KB
0/3
Comvive Security Features
1/3
Hostinet 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.