GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

NLHoastedvsTransIPNL

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

Test Date: 2/23/2026

Hoasted
WPTR ScoreWinner1400 ms
Rank#386
TTFB194ms
Time to 1MB450ms
Score1400
LCP594ms
FCP394ms
TransIP
WPTR Score4165 ms
Rank#785
TTFB502ms
Time to 1MB1572ms
Score4165
LCP902ms
FCP702ms

Our Verdict

Hoasted wins with 194ms TTFB (vs TransIP's 502ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseHoastedTransIPWinner
DNS Lookup113ms93msTransIP
TCP Connection89ms48msTransIP
TLS Handshake61ms49msTransIP
Server Processing57ms202msHoasted
Total TTFB320ms392msHoasted

Technology & Security Features

Hoasted

Server/CDNLiteSpeed
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size214.2 KB

TransIP

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size282.5 KB
3/3
Hoasted Security Features
1/3
TransIP 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.