GitHub|Since 2007

saeWallHostvsSahara Netsa

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner1725 ms
Rank#489
TTFB59ms
Time to 1MB677ms
Score1725
LCP459ms
FCP259ms
WPTR Score5111 ms
Rank#781
TTFB1256ms
Time to 1MB1354ms
Score5111
LCP1656ms
FCP1456ms

Our Verdict

eWallHost wins with 59ms TTFB (vs Sahara Net's 1256ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseeWallHostSahara NetWinner
DNS Lookup36ms588mseWallHost
TCP Connection14ms641mseWallHost
TLS Handshake20ms279mseWallHost
Server Processing30ms353mseWallHost
Total TTFB100ms1861mseWallHost

Technology & Security Features

eWallHost

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size9.4 KB

Sahara Net

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size359.4 KB
3/3
eWallHost Security Features
0/3
Sahara Net 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.