GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

uaHostiQvsMirohostua

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

HostiQ
WPTR ScoreWinner442 ms
Rank#57
TTFB66ms
Time to 1MB152ms
Score442
LCP466ms
FCP266ms
Mirohost
WPTR Score910 ms
Rank#324
TTFB492ms
Time to 1MB251ms
Score910
LCP892ms
FCP692ms

Our Verdict

HostiQ wins with 66ms TTFB (vs Mirohost's 492ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseHostiQMirohostWinner
DNS Lookup6ms58msHostiQ
TCP Connection16ms56msHostiQ
TLS Handshake24ms56msHostiQ
Server Processing31ms138msHostiQ
Total TTFB77ms308msHostiQ

Technology & Security Features

HostiQ

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size127.7 KB

Mirohost

Server/CDNnginx/1.12.0
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size40.5 KB
3/3
HostiQ Security Features
1/3
Mirohost 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.