GitHub|Since 2007

itIrideosvsNoamwebit

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner3374 ms
Rank#754
TTFB2480ms
Time to 1MB509ms
Score3374
LCP2880ms
FCP2680ms
WPTR Score17519 ms
Rank#892
TTFB867ms
Time to 1MB7022ms
Score17519
LCP1267ms
FCP1067ms

Our Verdict

Noamweb wins with 867ms TTFB (vs Irideos's 2480ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseIrideosNoamwebWinner
DNS Lookup56ms345msIrideos
TCP Connection93ms64msNoamweb
TLS Handshake100ms186msIrideos
Server Processing1903ms71msNoamweb
Total TTFB2152ms666msNoamweb

Technology & Security Features

Irideos

Server/CDNMicrosoft-IIS/10.0
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size374.6 KB

Noamweb

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size21.1 KB
1/3
Irideos Security Features
0/3
Noamweb 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.