GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

GBLIMAvsRazorblueGB

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
Razorblue
WPTR ScoreWinner1902 ms
Rank#317
TTFB359ms
Time to 1MB327ms
Score1902
LCP759ms
FCP559ms

Our Verdict

Razorblue wins with 359ms TTFB (vs LIMA's 2474ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseLIMARazorblueWinner
DNS Lookup167ms224msLIMA
TCP Connection53ms41msRazorblue
TLS Handshake50ms74msLIMA
Server Processing1433ms778msRazorblue
Total TTFB1703ms1117msRazorblue

Technology & Security Features

LIMA

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

Razorblue

Server/CDNUnknown
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size218.9 KB
0/3
LIMA Security Features
1/3
Razorblue 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.