Timeweb vs Vultr
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Amsterdam
Sydney
| Timeweb | Metric | Vultr |
|---|---|---|
|
58.2
|
Overall |
73.4
|
|
100.0
|
Ping |
100.0
|
|
11.5
|
Network speed |
85.5
|
|
39.6
|
CPU |
73.7
|
|
78.0
|
Memory |
97.5
|
|
72.7
|
Disk |
21.6
|
| 2 vCPU · 6 GB RAM | Configuration | 2 vCPU · 8 GB RAM |
On the overall score Vultr is ahead: 73.4 vs 58.2 out of 100 — a gap of 15.2 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
Timeweb is stronger on disk; Vultr — on network speed, CPU and memory. On ping the difference is within noise — treat them as equal there.
What that means in practice: for a database and write-heavy work — Timeweb; 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 Timeweb was taken in Netherlands on the 2 vCPU · 6 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.