M247 Europe vs Vultr
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Helsinki
Sydney
| M247 Europe | Metric | Vultr |
|---|---|---|
|
66.7
|
Overall |
74.1
|
|
68.1
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
70.4
|
Network speed |
85.5
|
|
30.8
|
CPU |
77.0
|
|
88.1
|
Memory |
97.5
|
|
87.6
|
Disk |
21.6
|
| 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 8 GB RAM |
On the overall score Vultr is ahead: 74.1 vs 66.7 out of 100 — a gap of 7.4 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
M247 Europe is stronger on disk; Vultr — on ping, network speed, CPU and memory.
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 — M247 Europe; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Vultr; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Vultr.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of M247 Europe was taken in Finland on the 1 vCPU · 1 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.