Ghostnet vs Tihost
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Frankfurt
Frankfurt
| Ghostnet | Metric | Tihost |
|---|---|---|
|
78.6
|
Overall |
55.6
|
|
76.9
|
Ping |
63.8
|
|
65.2
|
Network speed |
26.1
|
|
83.2
|
CPU |
83.2
|
|
96.3
|
Memory |
92.1
|
|
81.6
|
Disk |
33.7
|
| 2 vCPU · 2 GB RAM | Configuration | 4 vCPU · 4 GB RAM |
On the overall score Ghostnet is ahead: 78.6 vs 55.6 out of 100 — a gap of 23 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
Ghostnet is stronger on ping, network speed, memory and disk. On CPU the difference is within noise — treat them as equal there.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Ghostnet is the closer fit; for a database and write-heavy work — Ghostnet; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Ghostnet.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Ghostnet was taken in Germany on the 2 vCPU · 2 GB RAM plan, Tihost — in Germany on the 4 vCPU · 4 GB RAM plan. The locations match, so the network scores are directly comparable.
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.