GitHub|Since 2007

uaHyperHostvsUkrnamesua

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner440 ms
Rank#91
TTFB245ms
Time to 1MB110ms
Score440
LCP645ms
FCP445ms
WPTR Score1403 ms
Rank#422
TTFB1020ms
Time to 1MB157ms
Score1403
LCP1420ms
FCP1220ms

Our Verdict

HyperHost wins with 245ms TTFB (vs Ukrnames's 1020ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseHyperHostUkrnamesWinner
DNS Lookup1ms94msHyperHost
TCP Connection15ms125msHyperHost
TLS Handshake19ms81msHyperHost
Server Processing141ms726msHyperHost
Total TTFB176ms1026msHyperHost

Technology & Security Features

HyperHost

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size308.7 KB

Ukrnames

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size82.7 KB
3/3
HyperHost 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.