Original Ahosting benchmark
Apache vs LiteSpeed for WordPress: A Transparent Performance Study
LiteSpeed was approximately twice as fast for dynamic WordPress execution in our representative lab environments. With both platforms using a fast full-page cache, cacheable pages were effectively tied at about 11 ms.
Tested 23 August 2026 by Ahosting Technical Operations. Updated when material stack changes require a retest.
Key result
51-54%
lower median dynamic TTFB on LiteSpeed across the home page, a post and search.
Measured result for these Ahosting environments, not a universal guarantee.
Download the Full PDF View WordPress PlansExecutive Summary
We tested the same WordPress fixture on Ahosting-controlled Apache and LiteSpeed lab sites. The most important finding was that page caching changed the result dramatically.
- LiteSpeed produced 51 to 54 percent lower median TTFB on dynamic WordPress requests.
- At 20-way dynamic concurrency, LiteSpeed completed 6.04 requests per second versus 3.08 on Apache.
- With both fast page-cache paths enabled, home and post median TTFB was approximately 11 ms on both platforms.
- No failed requests occurred across 1,134 dynamic and 12,000 cached load-test requests.
Test Environment
Both sites used WordPress 7.1, PHP 8.2, Twenty Twenty-Five 1.5, 50 posts, 8 pages, 60 comments and 10 local images. Cloudflare was DNS-only, and both accounts had the same CPU, memory, process and I/O limits.
| Condition | Apache lab | LiteSpeed lab |
|---|---|---|
| Web server | Apache 2.4.67 | LiteSpeed Enterprise 6.3.6 |
| Host CPU threads | 48 | 40 |
| Host memory | 31.5 GB | 64.0 GB |
| PHP path | PHP-FPM | LSAPI with OPcache |
| Page cache | WP Super Cache 3.1.1 Expert mode | LiteSpeed Cache 7.9 |
| Database | Local MariaDB 10.11 | Remote MySQL 8.0.41 |
| Sequential test protocol | HTTP/1.1 | HTTP/2 |
Dynamic WordPress Results
Each route and platform has 30 observations from three independent rounds. Unique URLs forced cache misses. Lower TTFB is better.
| Route | Apache median | LiteSpeed median | Reduction | Apache p95 | LiteSpeed p95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home page | 361.5 ms | 165.2 ms | 54.3% | 2,972.9 ms | 207.2 ms |
| Post | 376.5 ms | 175.7 ms | 53.3% | 2,583.4 ms | 217.0 ms |
| Search | 385.2 ms | 189.2 ms | 50.9% | 2,996.7 ms | 197.8 ms |
The result reflects each complete stack, including PHP handler, OPcache, database placement and host conditions. It does not isolate the web-server binary.
Warm Page-Cache Results
Apache used WP Super Cache Expert/mod_rewrite delivery. LiteSpeed used server-integrated LSCache. Verified cache hits were primed before measurement.
| Cacheable route | Apache median TTFB | LiteSpeed median TTFB | Apache p95 | LiteSpeed p95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home page | 11.1 ms | 10.9 ms | 14.4 ms | 11.7 ms |
| Post | 10.9 ms | 10.8 ms | 12.0 ms | 11.8 ms |
With both fast cache paths enabled, the practical difference on these cacheable pages was negligible. Search is excluded because the two plugins used different default search-cache policies.
Dynamic Concurrency Results
Both page-cache plugins were temporarily disabled. Tests used HTTPS and HTTP/1.1 keep-alive from the same Michigan host. Values are medians of three runs.
| Concurrency | Apache req/s | LiteSpeed req/s | Apache p95 | LiteSpeed p95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.97 | 6.62 | 361 ms | 184 ms |
| 5 | 2.84 | 6.83 | 1,794 ms | 782 ms |
| 10 | 3.08 | 6.59 | 3,402 ms | 1,598 ms |
| 20 | 3.08 | 6.04 | 6,501 ms | 3,598 ms |
At concurrency 20, LiteSpeed completed about 96 percent more dynamic requests per second and reduced p95 latency by about 45 percent. Neither environment returned a failed request.
Looking for store performance?
WooCommerce Has Its Own Benchmark Study
See the separate cart, checkout, add-to-cart and cached product results measured under the higher WooStart account limits.
What the Results Mean
LiteSpeed led dynamically
The advantage matters for cache misses, logged-in activity, personalised pages and other requests that must execute WordPress.
Correct caching mattered most
A fast Apache cache path transformed cacheable response times. A fair comparison must configure both platforms appropriately.
Integration still matters
LiteSpeed combines LSAPI, WordPress-aware purge controls and server-integrated caching. The cache must still be enabled and verified.
Run WordPress on the tested stack
Ready to Put LiteSpeed to Work for Your Site?
Compare WordPress hosting plans with LiteSpeed, LSCache, cPanel, account isolation and a dedicated IP included.
Bronze starts at $2.79/mo on a 36-month introductory term and renews at $9.79/mo.
Limitations
- The hosts did not use identical CPU counts, memory or database placement.
- The Michigan test location does not represent global end-user latency.
- ApacheBench did not measure browser rendering or Core Web Vitals.
- The fixture does not represent every theme, plugin stack, WooCommerce store or traffic mix.
- The tests were controlled capacity probes, not endurance tests or service-level guarantees.
- Requests per second are HTTP throughput, not simultaneous human visitors.
Choose the WordPress Stack That Fits Your Site
LiteSpeed provided stronger dynamic headroom in our test. Compare WordPress plans for business sites, membership platforms and growing WordPress workloads.