GitHub|Since 2007

brRedeHostvsUmblerbr

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

Test Date: 2/24/2026

WPTR Score2329 ms
Rank#787
TTFB3548ms
Time to 1MB444ms
Score2329
LCP3948ms
FCP3748ms
WPTR ScoreWinner2135 ms
Rank#686
TTFB2190ms
Time to 1MB274ms
Score2135
LCP2590ms
FCP2390ms

Our Verdict

Umbler wins with 2190ms TTFB (vs RedeHost's 3548ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseRedeHostUmblerWinner
DNS Lookup128ms4msUmbler
TCP Connection371ms455msRedeHost
TLS Handshake512ms519msRedeHost
Server Processing252ms499msRedeHost
Total TTFB1263ms1477msUmbler

Technology & Security Features

RedeHost

Server/CDNMicrosoft-IIS/8.5
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size20.8 KB

Umbler

Server/CDNMicrosoft-IIS/8.5
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size33.9 KB
0/3
RedeHost Security Features
0/3
Umbler 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.