When you're choosing a web server for your site — whether it's a high-traffic WordPress store, a custom web app, or a static site — performance matters. Apache, Nginx, and LiteSpeed remain the most popular options, but how do they really stack up in real-world benchmarks?

In this post, we'll compare them head-to-head using data from recent performance tests and practical metrics you care about: concurrency, throughput, static vs dynamic content handling, caching performance, and resource usage.

🧠 Quick Overview: The Three Contenders

Web Server	Architecture	Strengths	Typical Use Cases
Apache	Process-based (MPMs)	Highly compatible, extensible	Legacy apps, .htaccess workflows
Nginx	Event-driven, asynchronous	Low memory footprint, efficient	Static content, reverse proxy
LiteSpeed	Event-driven + optimized PHP API	High throughput, built-in caching	WordPress & high-traffic dynamic sites

🚀 1. Throughput: Requests per Second 📈 Static Content

Serving static assets (like images, CSS, HTML) is one of the simplest benchmarks — and often one of the most telling:

Web Server	Requests/sec (Static)
Apache	~5,000
Nginx	~29,000–30,000
LiteSpeed	~167,000

In tests using HTTP/2 with many concurrent connections, LiteSpeed served static content 3–6× faster than Nginx and ~30× faster than Apache.

📊 Dynamic PHP Content (e.g., WordPress)

Dynamic content involving PHP is where performance differences become even more pronounced:

Web Server	WordPress Requests/sec
Apache	~800–1,000
Nginx	~5,000–6,000
LiteSpeed	~69,000

According to benchmark results with WordPress, LiteSpeed outpaced Nginx by a factor of ~12× and Apache by ~84× in requests per second.

Key takeaway: LiteSpeed's LSAPI and built-in cache systems give it a huge advantage for dynamic, PHP-driven content.

🧪 2. Concurrency & Scalability

Concurrency tests show how well each server handles many simultaneous users.

• Apache's process-based model struggles at high concurrency unless carefully tuned with Event MPM.
• Nginx's event-driven architecture excels — keeping CPU and memory use low even under heavy load.
• LiteSpeed builds on this with enhanced PHP handling, often matching or outperforming Nginx in high-traffic scenarios.

💡 In concurrency benchmarks, both Nginx and LiteSpeed handled thousands of simultaneous connections far better than Apache — making them more suitable for high-traffic sites.

⏱ 3. Time to First Byte (TTFB) and Latency

Faster TTFB generally leads to better user experience and SEO outcomes.

Benchmarks suggest:

• Apache: Highest TTFB due to higher overhead.
• Nginx: Lower TTFB with efficient event loops.
• LiteSpeed: Lowest TTFB thanks to QUIC/HTTP3, cache integration, and optimized PHP pipeline.

This often translates to faster Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) scores in performance tools for sites running on LiteSpeed.

💾 4. Caching Efficiency

Caching is where web servers can save massive amounts of processing:

• Apache relies on external modules and plugins, which are less efficient by design.
• Nginx can implement caching, but configuration complexity rises and features aren't native.
• LiteSpeed comes with powerful built-in cache (LSCache) that natively understands CMS patterns like WordPress.

Effect: Efficient caching dramatically increases throughput and reduces server load.

💡 5. Real-World Usage and Tradeoffs