GitHub|Since 2007

siNeoservvsWebicomsi

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner1345 ms
Rank#452
TTFB875ms
Time to 1MB267ms
Score1345
LCP1275ms
FCP1075ms
WPTR Score1757 ms
Rank#453
TTFB466ms
Time to 1MB439ms
Score1757
LCP866ms
FCP666ms

Our Verdict

Webicom wins with 466ms TTFB (vs Neoserv's 875ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseNeoservWebicomWinner
DNS Lookup12ms568msNeoserv
TCP Connection49ms42msWebicom
TLS Handshake89ms42msWebicom
Server Processing554ms51msWebicom
Total TTFB704ms703msWebicom

Technology & Security Features

Neoserv

Server/CDNnginx/1.10.3 (Ubuntu
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size280.6 KB

Webicom

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size140.4 KB
0/3
Neoserv Security Features
0/3
Webicom 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.