There can be a lot of processing involved (looking at you FBX) or less (glTF, probably STL) but there's still going to be at least decompressing the binary data and copying it into buffers then uploading those to the GPU. So, without knowing how STL binary is specified, parsing 97mb in 165ms seems reasonable.
Possibly, two things.
1. Indexing the mesh. STL files don't contain meshes, they instead have a triangle soup. Indexed meshes are more efficient for rendering, they save VRAM bandwidth and vertex shaders.
2. Computing normals. STL files have per-triangle normals (can be complete garbage because most software ignores them), for smooth surfaces you want per-vertex normals. Computing them well (like I did there https://github.com/Const-me/Vrmac#3d-gpu-abstraction-layer ) is slow and complicated.
In practice, I'm racing mesh loading against "how long does the OS take to give you an OpenGL context", which is rarely below 160 ms (longer if it has to switch from integrated to discrete GPU).
How do you measure when the frame is done, are you waiting for a vsync?
A truly fancy system would be something like Tristan Hume's keyboard-to-photon latency system: https://thume.ca/2020/05/20/making-a-latency-tester/
Anyway, the answer is there, it's actually measuring the performance of sending the mesh to openGL, to the GPU, and getting a frame rendered.
It depends on exactly what you're measuring, you see. If you are loading data in order to do something, then the "do something" part will incur 100% of all the costs in that case. So when you subtract the "do something" part to just be left with the "load it" part, you can end up with a meaningless zero-to-do/doing-it-infinitely-fast kind of a result.
So then, what would you measure? Just peak RAM throughput? You can get that from the data-sheets :)
This actually sounds incredibly slow, that's nearly 1/5th of an entire second. What can it possibly be doing? :)
In case anyone else was wondering, I followed the link and clicked the description and this is actually based on the time to the first frame being rendered - not just the time to load the file (which should be essentially infinitely fast). So it's actually more impressive than it sounds.