GitHub|Since 2007

USExpedientvsIOFloodUS

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

Test Date: 2/23/2026

WPTR Score5060 ms
Rank#796
TTFB702ms
Time to 1MB1619ms
Score5060
LCP1102ms
FCP902ms
WPTR ScoreWinner1696 ms
Rank#387
TTFB240ms
Time to 1MB431ms
Score1696
LCP640ms
FCP440ms

Our Verdict

IOFlood wins with 240ms TTFB (vs Expedient's 702ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseExpedientIOFloodWinner
DNS Lookup297ms63msIOFlood
TCP Connection429ms14msIOFlood
TLS Handshake299ms20msIOFlood
Server Processing149ms565msExpedient
Total TTFB1174ms662msIOFlood

Technology & Security Features

Expedient

Server/CDNnginx/1.20.1
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size731.6 KB

IOFlood

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size21.7 KB
0/3
Expedient Security Features
3/3
IOFlood 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.