GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

beKinamovsNomeobe

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

Kinamo
WPTR ScoreWinner1083 ms
Rank#274
TTFB592ms
Time to 1MB179ms
Score1083
LCP992ms
FCP792ms
Nomeo
WPTR Score1897 ms
Rank#518
TTFB256ms
Time to 1MB678ms
Score1897
LCP656ms
FCP456ms

Our Verdict

Nomeo wins with 256ms TTFB (vs Kinamo's 592ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseKinamoNomeoWinner
DNS Lookup116ms213msKinamo
TCP Connection167ms14msNomeo
TLS Handshake56ms22msNomeo
Server Processing314ms21msNomeo
Total TTFB653ms270msNomeo

Technology & Security Features

Kinamo

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size75.4 KB

Nomeo

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size9.4 KB
2/3
Kinamo Security Features
3/3
Nomeo 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.