Ghostnet vs Vultr
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Frankfurt
Sydney
| Ghostnet | Metric | Vultr |
|---|---|---|
|
78.6
|
Overall |
74.1
|
|
76.9
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
65.2
|
Network speed |
85.5
|
|
83.2
|
CPU |
77.0
|
|
96.3
|
Memory |
97.5
|
|
81.6
|
Disk |
21.6
|
| 2 vCPU · 2 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 8 GB RAM |
On the overall score Ghostnet is ahead: 78.6 vs 74.1 out of 100 — a gap of 4.5 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 CPU and disk; Vultr — on ping and network speed. On memory the difference is within noise — treat them as equal there.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Vultr is the closer fit; for a database and write-heavy work — Ghostnet; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Vultr; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Ghostnet.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Ghostnet was taken in Germany on the 2 vCPU · 2 GB RAM plan, Vultr — in Australia on the 2 vCPU · 8 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.