GitHub|Since 2007

ruSpaceWebvsWebnamesru

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

Test Date: 2/25/2026

WPTR ScoreWinner1719 ms
Rank#384
TTFB1020ms
Time to 1MB101ms
Score1719
LCP1420ms
FCP1220ms
WPTR Score1724 ms
Rank#471
TTFB644ms
Time to 1MB391ms
Score1724
LCP1044ms
FCP844ms

Our Verdict

Webnames wins with 644ms TTFB (vs SpaceWeb's 1020ms)

TTFB Breakdown (Connection Phases)

PhaseSpaceWebWebnamesWinner
DNS Lookup151ms404msSpaceWeb
TCP Connection71ms95msSpaceWeb
TLS Handshake144ms99msWebnames
Server Processing1111ms188msWebnames
Total TTFB1477ms786msWebnames

Technology & Security Features

SpaceWeb

Server/CDNnginx
HSTS Enabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size284.3 KB

Webnames

Server/CDNnginx/1.14.2
HSTS Disabled
Brotli Compression Disabled
HTTP/3 (QUIC) Disabled
Page Size125.6 KB
1/3
SpaceWeb Security Features
0/3
Webnames 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.