Digitalocean vs M247 Europe
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Sydney
Helsinki
| Digitalocean | Metric | M247 Europe |
|---|---|---|
|
68.0
|
Overall |
65.7
|
|
100.0
|
Ping |
68.1
|
|
84.3
|
Network speed |
70.5
|
|
38.5
|
CPU |
29.6
|
|
35.5
|
Memory |
84.2
|
|
61.7
|
Disk |
85.8
|
| 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM | Configuration | 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM |
On the overall score Digitalocean and M247 Europe are level: 68.0 vs 65.7 out of 100. A gap of 2.3 points is smaller than the spread between individual passes, so calling an outright winner would be dishonest — look at the individual categories below.
Digitalocean is stronger on ping, network speed and CPU; M247 Europe — on memory and disk.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Digitalocean is the closer fit; for a database and write-heavy work — M247 Europe; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Digitalocean; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Digitalocean.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Digitalocean was taken in Australia on the 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM plan, M247 Europe — in Finland on the 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM plan. The locations differ, so compare ping and speed with care: they say as much about the route to our control endpoints as about the server itself.
Important: this compares the best published test of each provider, not an average across all their servers. Every result is a snapshot of one machine on the test date — on another node, or a month later, the numbers may differ. The scoring method and raw logs are public, so you can check them yourself.