GitHub|Since 2007
Wptr Lab

FRNetimvsProginovFR

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

Netim
WPTR Score3608 ms
Rank#777
TTFB2569ms
Time to 1MB748ms
Score3608
LCP2969ms
FCP2769ms
Proginov
WPTR ScoreWinner3501 ms
Rank#672
TTFB2034ms
Time to 1MB264ms
Score3501
LCP2434ms
FCP2234ms

Our Verdict

Proginov wins with 2034ms TTFB (vs Netim's 2569ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseNetimProginovWinner
DNS Lookup132ms2406msNetim
TCP Connection11ms303msNetim
TLS Handshake17ms63msNetim
Server Processing1653ms95msProginov
Total TTFB1813ms2867msProginov

Technology & Security Features

Netim

Server/CDNcloudflare
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Enabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Enabled
Page Size106.6 KB

Proginov

Server/CDNApache
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size37.6 KB
3/3
Netim Security Features
0/3
Proginov 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.