Skip to content 
At Web server comparison In 2026, I test Apache, NGINX and LiteSpeed under real load scenarios, from static files to dynamic PHP applications with WordPress and WooCommerce. The test shows clear differences in Architecture, tuning effort, HTTP/3 support and the cost per performance unit.
Key points
- ArchitectureProcess-based (Apache) vs. event-driven (NGINX, LiteSpeed)
- PerformanceLiteSpeed leads with dynamic content, NGINX with static files
- CompatibilityApache and LiteSpeed with .htaccess, NGINX without
- SecurityIntegrated protection stronger with LiteSpeed, slim design with NGINX
- CostsApache/NGINX free of charge, LiteSpeed Enterprise licensed
Architectures at a glance 2026
I rate the Architecture first, because it dictates performance and scaling. Apache uses multiprocessing modules (MPM), which create processes or threads for each connection and thus become flexible, but more cumbersome under high parallelism. NGINX works event-driven with non-blocking I/O and processes thousands of requests per worker, which scales greatly with many simultaneous visitors. LiteSpeed combines an event-based model with Apache compatibility so that .htaccess, known directives and modules continue to work. If you want to delve deeper, you can find a good explanation of the differences in LiteSpeed vs. NGINX, which makes the choice for High-Traffic-workloads.
Comparison table: Apache, NGINX and LiteSpeed 2026
The following table summarizes key features that I prioritize in the test: operation, speed, efficiency, HTTP/3, .htaccess and typical usage scenarios. I take both everyday operation and peak loads into account, as this is where limits become apparent. The stars express relative strengths, not absolute laboratory measurements. For many projects, a lean Configuration more than the last percentage point of throughput. If you want predictable costs and clear reserves, you can see the right direction at a glance.
| Criterion | Apache | NGINX | LiteSpeed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ease of use | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Speed | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Resource efficiency | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| HTTP/3 Support | No | Yes | Yes |
| .htaccess | Yes | No | Yes |
| Recommended traffic | up to ~1,000/day | >10,000/day | 1.000-10.000+ |
Apache in detail 2026
I see Apache as a reliable Base for beginners and operators with manageable traffic. The broad compatibility with Linux, Windows and Unix simplifies the start, and .htaccess enables rules directly in the web directory. Under higher loads, however, the process-based approach shows clear limits, especially with many simultaneous PHP requests. More can be achieved with MPM Worker or Event, but memory-hungry peaks remain an issue. Anyone running small to medium-sized projects will benefit from the large community, clear documentation and familiar Administration.
NGINX in detail 2026
With NGINX, I am impressed by the efficiency in dealing with Connections. One worker processes thousands of requests and keeps the CPU load amazingly low even during traffic peaks. NGINX delivers static files extremely quickly, and as a reverse proxy with a built-in load balancer, it shows its strengths in microservice and container environments. The downside: there is no .htaccess, and many adjustments are made in central configuration files, which requires discipline. For those planning high-traffic projects, NGINX is a fast, well-scaling Platform.
LiteSpeed in detail 2026
LiteSpeed combines speed with Compatibility and regularly delivers the best values for dynamic content. LSAPI accelerates PHP, while the integrated LiteSpeed cache intelligently stores pages and assets, which benefits Core Web Vitals. The Apache-like configuration, including .htaccess and numerous directives, makes migrations noticeably easier. HTTP/3 and QUIC are on board, DDoS protection and ModSecurity rules increase the defenses. For WordPress and WooCommerce setups, I often achieve the lowest latency and the lowest performance with LiteSpeed. CPU-consumption per user.
Performance with WordPress and PHP
In my measurements, LiteSpeed and NGINX score highly for PHP clearly ahead of Apache, but the ranking depends on the caching. LiteSpeed delivers the highest number of requests per second with LSCache and LSAPI and the lowest TTFB for dynamic pages. NGINX can become very fast with the help of FastCGI cache, but requires consistent tuning and a well thought-out cache bypass rule set. Apache falls behind with many simultaneous PHP requests, but keeps up solidly with OPcache and targeted MPM selection. Anyone planning WordPress can find practical tips in LiteSpeed vs. Apache and thus achieves noticeable Performance-reserves.
Test environment and methodology
I measure with clear, reproducible Profiles. For static content I use 100% GET requests with cold and warm cache, for PHP workloads I mix cache hits, cache bypasses and requests with sessions (e.g. shopping carts). In addition to throughput, the decisive factors are tail latencies (p95/p99) because they shape user experience and conversion. I record TTFB, time-to-load byte, error rates (5xx), retries and stability under ramp-up and ramp-down. I test each configuration with identical TLS settings, identical PHP version and identical databases. Only when hot and cold cache, concurrency levels and payload sizes have been run through do I assign my Judgment.
Static content and CDN
For images, scripts and stylesheets, raw Deliveryspeed. NGINX delivers static assets at lightning speed and keeps RAM and CPU requirements low, which reduces costs on VPS and in the cloud. LiteSpeed is close behind and benefits from modern protocols and aggressive caching. Apache serves static content reliably, but rarely reaches the peak values of the two event servers. With an upstream CDN, the differences shrink, but the origin remains important, as cache misses still end up on the Origin-server.
Security and HTTP/3
I evaluate security according to attack surface, patch speed and Features. NGINX keeps the attack surface small because it works very compactly and requires few modules. LiteSpeed comes with DDoS protection, ModSecurity and fine-tuning for rate limiting, which helps with volumetric attacks. Apache is considered solid, but can break a sweat under extreme load when processes pile up. In terms of protocols, HTTP/3 is ahead with NGINX and LiteSpeed; this ensures lower latencies and better performance over long distances. Stability.
Resource requirements and costs
I always take into account costs per Request, not just absolute throughput values. NGINX achieves a high number of parallel connections with the same hardware and thus keeps instance sizes small. LiteSpeed achieves so much efficiency with dynamic content that the license often pays for itself with high user numbers. Apache remains cost-friendly in operation as long as the concurrency remains moderate, but requires larger machines sooner. If you are planning a budget, calculate RAM, vCPU, bandwidth and licenses together and compare the overall picture in Euro.
Migration and compatibility
I always check the following before a migration Config-Details: rewrite rules, PHP handlers, Brotli/Gzip, HSTS, cache bypasses and security filters. Switching from Apache to LiteSpeed is easiest because .htaccess and many directives continue to work. Anyone switching to NGINX should translate URL rewrites cleanly into the server and location blocks and coordinate edge caching in the CDN. Experience can help with thread and process tuning, a starting point can be found in the Thread pool optimization. Tests with staging, synthetic load profile and metrics on TTFB, LCP and error rate prevent surprises in the Live-circuit.
Configuration tips for 2026
I start with a few, but effective Levers. For Apache, I select MPM Event, set keep-alive timeouts to a minimum and keep .htaccess to a minimum. For NGINX, I bring worker processes to the number of CPU cores, tune worker_connections, activate HTTP/3, OCSP stapling and a consistent FastCGI cache. LiteSpeed benefits from cleanly configured LSCache with cache tags, ESI for pages with shopping cart and QUIC/HTTP/3 active. Independent of the server, an aggressive image and font cache reduces load and improves Core Web Vitals at Traffic.
Key figures and market picture 2026
For classification I look at Shares and growth curves. NGINX has a market share of around 22 percent, Apache around 20 percent and LiteSpeed around 4 percent with noticeable growth. This distribution reflects the strengths: NGINX in high-traffic setups, Apache in entry-level and legacy environments, LiteSpeed in the performance segment for dynamic sites. For shared hosting I tend to use Apache or LiteSpeed, on VPS/Cloud mostly NGINX or LiteSpeed. It is important to measure your own performance, because hardware, app stack and caching strategy shift the Results.
Practical selection guide
I decide on the basis of Traffic, content type and team experience. Apache is often sufficient for blogs and small stores as long as concurrency remains low and caching works properly. For APIs, streaming and large portals, I rely on NGINX because it remains scalable under high load. For WordPress, WooCommerce and other PHP-heavy setups, LiteSpeed regularly delivers the best response times, especially for complex dynamic sites. If you are undecided, test with load profiles from real usage times and compare TTFB, error rates and CPU per minute. Request.
PHP stack and handler
In my tests, the PHP stack often separates the Chaff from the wheat. Apache runs classically with mod_php or via PHP-FPM; for modern setups I recommend FPM with Process Manager „ondemand“ and clear limits for max children and idle timeouts. NGINX works with PHP-FPM by default; here FastCGI buffers, timeouts and cleanly set headers determine stability under load. LiteSpeed uses LSAPI, which scores points thanks to less context switching and close integration, especially with high concurrency. Regardless of the server, the following applies: activate OPcache, plan bytecode warmup, use JIT with restraint and set the pool sizes to real Tips vote.
Caching strategies in detail
Caching makes or breaks the Performance of dynamic sites. With LSCache, LiteSpeed offers page, object and browser cache including cache tags and ESI, allowing shopping cart and user areas to be cached separately. With NGINX, a clean FastCGI cache with microcaching (seconds range) is often the game changer, as long as bypass rules for logged-in users and POST/Query parameters are consistently effective. Apache benefits from reverse proxy front-ends or dedicated cache modules, but usually remains behind the event servers. A clear invalidation strategy is important: tag-based purges for content updates, targeted TTLs for categories, and a Vary policy that blocks cookies and device classes correctly taken into account.
Operation in containers and Kubernetes
In container environments, plannable Conduct when scaling. NGINX shows its strengths as an edge or sidecar proxy and can be easily integrated into orchestrated deployments. I version configurations as code and deliver them together with the images; this means that Blue/Green and Canary rollouts remain controllable. Apache runs stably in containers, but requires more RAM per pod in the past due to the process models. LiteSpeed can be containerized and scores points for PHP latencies, but requires a clean licensing and persistence strategy. Common basis: limits for open files, TCP backlogs, kernel parameters (somaxconn) and a log rotation that also works with Tips not blocked.
Observability and troubleshooting
I rely on Transparencystructured access logs with request IDs, upstream timings and cache hit/miss status. This is how I correct slow responses with PHP or database latencies. With NGINX, $upstream_response_time and $request_time help, with LiteSpeed the detailed real-time statistics. I measure p95/p99 latencies per endpoint, error rates and saturation (CPU, RAM, open files). Short timeouts, clear retry strategies and circuit breaker patterns are helpful for troubleshooting in load situations. A dedicated „Staging Load“ slot avoids surprises during rollout, and a reproducible Rollback-path is mandatory.
Energy efficiency and sustainability
Efficiency pays off not only in euros, but also in Watt off. Event servers such as NGINX and LiteSpeed keep the CPU consumption per request low and thus reduce energy consumption. Caching also reduces the computing time per page request; optimizing TTFB and bytes on wire (compression, image formats, fonts) noticeably reduces the load. At system level, CPU governor profiles, NUMA awareness and smart placement of workers help. It is important not to choose reserves that are permanently too large: Fine autoscaling keeps the platform elastic without oversizing Idling Resources to consume.
Licensing and support aspects
In projects with clear SLA-In addition to performance, I also take into account support channels. Apache and NGINX can be used license-free and benefit from broad communities and extensive documentation. LiteSpeed requires a license for enterprise features, but offers integrated tools and close integration with PHP and Cache. Economically, I offset the license against smaller instance sizes and lower CPU minutes; with dynamic traffic, this can improve the overall balance. Predictability and escalation paths are crucial: If you need fixed response times, plan reliable Support-channels.
Frequent misconfigurations and quick remedies
In audits, I often come across similar BrakesToo long keep-alive timeouts block workers, too small FastCGI buffers generate 502 errors under load, and a missing cache bypass for logged-in users clogs the caches. Also common: open_file_limits that are too low, no Gzip/Brotli consistency or missing OCSP stacking. My remedy: keep timeouts short, test buffers and buffering per path, choose cache keys and var header carefully, increase limits system-wide and reduce log noise. A small load test after every change prevents optimizations from being blindly implemented. Bottlenecks ...to make it.
Briefly summarized
I will summarize the selection clearly so that decisions can be made quickly. Apache scores points for ease of use, broad compatibility and .htaccess, but is weaker with a large number of simultaneous requests. NGINX shines with its event-driven architecture, excellent efficiency and speed with static content, but requires consistent configuration management. LiteSpeed combines event performance with Apache compatibility, integrated cache and strong HTTP/3, which visibly accelerates dynamic content. If you are looking for beginner-friendliness, choose Apache; Those who plan high traffic rely on NGINX; Those who maximize WordPress speed are best off with LiteSpeed.
