GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

grLancomvsPointergr

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

Lancom
WPTR Score805 ms
Rank#130
TTFB362ms
Time to 1MB101ms
Score805
LCP762ms
FCP562ms
Pointer
WPTR ScoreWinner437 ms
Rank#79
TTFB134ms
Time to 1MB144ms
Score437
LCP534ms
FCP334ms

Our Verdict

Pointer wins with 134ms TTFB (vs Lancom's 362ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseLancomPointerWinner
DNS Lookup113ms5msPointer
TCP Connection145ms23msPointer
TLS Handshake24ms23msPointer
Server Processing281ms40msPointer
Total TTFB563ms91msPointer

Technology & Security Features

Lancom

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size186.4 KB

Pointer

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size291.1 KB
0/3
Lancom Security Features
2/3
Pointer 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.