GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

itErgonetvsNoamwebit

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Ergonet
WPTR ScoreWinner438 ms
Rank#59
TTFB171ms
Time to 1MB112ms
Score438
LCP571ms
FCP371ms
Noamweb
WPTR Score17519 ms
Rank#892
TTFB867ms
Time to 1MB7022ms
Score17519
LCP1267ms
FCP1067ms

Our Verdict

Ergonet wins with 171ms TTFB (vs Noamweb's 867ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseErgonetNoamwebWinner
DNS Lookup6ms345msErgonet
TCP Connection14ms64msErgonet
TLS Handshake19ms186msErgonet
Server Processing130ms71msNoamweb
Total TTFB169ms666msErgonet

Technology & Security Features

Ergonet

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size169.5 KB

Noamweb

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size21.1 KB
1/3
Ergonet Security Features
0/3
Noamweb 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.