GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

GBLIMAvsNode4GB

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

LIMA
WPTR Score4902 ms
Rank#815
TTFB2474ms
Time to 1MB1333ms
Score4902
LCP2874ms
FCP2674ms
Node4
WPTR ScoreWinner1677 ms
Rank#454
TTFB514ms
Time to 1MB447ms
Score1677
LCP914ms
FCP714ms

Our Verdict

Node4 wins with 514ms TTFB (vs LIMA's 2474ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseLIMANode4Winner
DNS Lookup167ms90msNode4
TCP Connection53ms55msLIMA
TLS Handshake50ms108msLIMA
Server Processing1433ms351msNode4
Total TTFB1703ms604msNode4

Technology & Security Features

LIMA

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size186.2 KB

Node4

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size195.4 KB
0/3
LIMA Security Features
1/3
Node4 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.