GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

ruFornexvsRUVDSru

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Fornex
WPTR ScoreWinner568 ms
Rank#114
TTFB230ms
Time to 1MB138ms
Score568
LCP630ms
FCP430ms
RUVDS
WPTR Score2721 ms
Rank#707
TTFB550ms
Time to 1MB1008ms
Score2721
LCP950ms
FCP750ms

Our Verdict

Fornex wins with 230ms TTFB (vs RUVDS's 550ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseFornexRUVDSWinner
DNS Lookup5ms4msRUVDS
TCP Connection15ms76msFornex
TLS Handshake22ms84msFornex
Server Processing195ms138msRUVDS
Total TTFB237ms302msFornex

Technology & Security Features

Fornex

Server/CDNsw
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size164.4 KB

RUVDS

Server/CDNddos-guard
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size331.8 KB
2/3
Fornex 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.