GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

uaHostiQvsUkrnamesua

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
Ukrnames
WPTR Score1403 ms
Rank#422
TTFB1020ms
Time to 1MB157ms
Score1403
LCP1420ms
FCP1220ms

Our Verdict

HostiQ wins with 66ms TTFB (vs Ukrnames's 1020ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseHostiQUkrnamesWinner
DNS Lookup6ms94msHostiQ
TCP Connection16ms125msHostiQ
TLS Handshake24ms81msHostiQ
Server Processing31ms726msHostiQ
Total TTFB77ms1026msHostiQ

Technology & Security Features

HostiQ

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

Ukrnames

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size82.7 KB
3/3
HostiQ Security Features
1/3
Ukrnames 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.