Digitalocean vs Timeweb
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Sydney
Amsterdam
| Digitalocean | Metric | Timeweb |
|---|---|---|
|
68.0
|
Overall |
58.2
|
|
100.0
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
84.3
|
Network speed |
11.5
|
|
38.5
|
CPU |
39.6
|
|
35.5
|
Memory |
78.0
|
|
61.7
|
Disk |
72.7
|
| 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 6 GB RAM |
On the overall score Digitalocean is ahead: 68.0 vs 58.2 out of 100 — a gap of 9.8 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
Digitalocean is stronger on network speed; Timeweb — on memory and disk. On ping and CPU the difference is within noise — treat them as equal there.
What that means in practice: for a database and write-heavy work — Timeweb; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Digitalocean.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Digitalocean was taken in Australia on the 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM plan, Timeweb — in Netherlands on the 2 vCPU · 6 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.