GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

ruEurobytevsRUVDSru

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Eurobyte
WPTR ScoreWinner1106 ms
Rank#212
TTFB449ms
Time to 1MB150ms
Score1106
LCP849ms
FCP649ms
RUVDS
WPTR Score2721 ms
Rank#707
TTFB550ms
Time to 1MB1008ms
Score2721
LCP950ms
FCP750ms

Our Verdict

Eurobyte wins with 449ms TTFB (vs RUVDS's 550ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseEurobyteRUVDSWinner
DNS Lookup76ms4msRUVDS
TCP Connection148ms76msRUVDS
TLS Handshake74ms84msEurobyte
Server Processing448ms138msRUVDS
Total TTFB746ms302msEurobyte

Technology & Security Features

Eurobyte

Server/CDNddos-guard
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size85.8 KB

RUVDS

Server/CDNddos-guard
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size331.8 KB
0/3
Eurobyte Security Features
1/3
RUVDS 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.