GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

chcyonvsMetanetch

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

cyon
WPTR Score2249 ms
Rank#581
TTFB600ms
Time to 1MB682ms
Score2249
LCP1000ms
FCP800ms
Metanet
WPTR ScoreWinner1460 ms
Rank#556
TTFB935ms
Time to 1MB479ms
Score1460
LCP1335ms
FCP1135ms

Our Verdict

cyon wins with 600ms TTFB (vs Metanet's 935ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhasecyonMetanetWinner
DNS Lookup124ms50msMetanet
TCP Connection72ms52msMetanet
TLS Handshake72ms77mscyon
Server Processing344ms131msMetanet
Total TTFB612ms310mscyon

Technology & Security Features

cyon

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size255.2 KB

Metanet

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size200.9 KB
3/3
cyon Security Features
1/3
Metanet 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.