ITLDC vs Timeweb
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
| ITLDC | Metric | Timeweb |
|---|---|---|
|
64.3
|
Overall |
58.2
|
|
89.9
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
84.9
|
Network speed |
11.5
|
|
18.7
|
CPU |
39.6
|
|
40.6
|
Memory |
78.0
|
|
72.5
|
Disk |
72.7
|
| 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 6 GB RAM |
On the overall score ITLDC is ahead: 64.3 vs 58.2 out of 100 — a gap of 6.2 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
ITLDC is stronger on network speed; Timeweb — on ping, CPU and memory. On disk the difference is within noise — treat them as equal there.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Timeweb is the closer fit; for file delivery, streaming and backups — ITLDC; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Timeweb.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of ITLDC was taken in Netherlands on the 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM plan, Timeweb — in Netherlands on the 2 vCPU · 6 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.