GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

esComvivevsLoadinges

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Comvive
WPTR Score7769 ms
Rank#840
TTFB414ms
Time to 1MB2920ms
Score7769
LCP814ms
FCP614ms
Loading
WPTR ScoreWinner1191 ms
Rank#328
TTFB563ms
Time to 1MB227ms
Score1191
LCP963ms
FCP763ms

Our Verdict

Comvive wins with 414ms TTFB (vs Loading's 563ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseComviveLoadingWinner
DNS Lookup537ms203msLoading
TCP Connection60ms63msComvive
TLS Handshake62ms63msComvive
Server Processing102ms317msComvive
Total TTFB761ms646msComvive

Technology & Security Features

Comvive

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

Loading

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size59.3 KB
0/3
Comvive Security Features
1/3
Loading 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.