Tihost vs Timeweb
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Frankfurt
Amsterdam
| Tihost | Metric | Timeweb |
|---|---|---|
|
55.6
|
Overall |
58.2
|
|
63.8
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
26.3
|
Network speed |
11.5
|
|
82.7
|
CPU |
39.6
|
|
92.1
|
Memory |
78.0
|
|
33.7
|
Disk |
72.7
|
| 4 vCPU · 4 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 6 GB RAM |
On the overall score Tihost and Timeweb are level: 55.6 vs 58.2 out of 100. A gap of 2.6 points is smaller than the spread between individual passes, so calling an outright winner would be dishonest — look at the individual categories below.
Tihost is stronger on network speed, CPU and memory; Timeweb — on ping and disk.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Timeweb is the closer fit; for a database and write-heavy work — Timeweb; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Tihost; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Tihost.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Tihost was taken in Germany on the 4 vCPU · 4 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.