Antihost is a VPS and WordPress hosting provider built for developers and teams who want direct control over their infrastructure, backed by one-click deployment options for tools like Docker, n8n, and Coolify. It’s not chasing the beginner market.
Everything about the product, from the navigation to the checkout flow, is built for people who already know what they want to run.
I provisioned a Professional-tier VPS, benchmarked CPU, memory, disk, and network performance, tested ticket and live chat support with genuine technical questions, and worked through registration, server setup, and day-to-day management. Here is the complete picture.
To evaluate Antihost, I applied our hosting review methodology, a structured methodology we use across all hosting reviews to keep scores consistent, fair, and grounded in real hands-on testing rather than marketing claims.
Here is how Antihost scored across every key parameter.
| Parameter | Score | Why This Score |
|---|---|---|
| Prices | 9.0/10 | Transparent tiered discounts and a genuine 14-day refund window. |
| Features | 9.0/10 | Strong feature set including sharing, rescue mode, and one-click apps. |
| Performance | 9.5/10 | Exceptional CPU, memory, and disk results with zero stress failures. |
| Ease of Use | 8.7/10 | Clean interface, but no onboarding for first-time VPS users. |
| Support | 8.8/10 | Accurate answers on both channels, though no phone option exists. |
| Overall | 9.0/10 | A fast, developer-focused VPS platform with a few rough edges. |
Antihost’s core product is VPS hosting, sold across three tiers: Standard, Professional, and Expert, plus a Custom Requirements option for non-standard setups. WordPress Hosting runs as a separate product line.
See the pricing below for current rates across all tiers and billing terms.
| Plan Name | Space | CPU | RAM | OS | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | 30 GB | 1 x 5.7GHz | 2 GB | NZ$14.27 | Details | |
| Professional | 100 GB | 4 cores | 8 GB | NZ$57.12 | Details | |
| Expert | 400 GB | 12 cores | 32 GB | NZ$228.54 | Details |
| Plan Name | Space | CPU | RAM | Warranty | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standart 1 | 5 GB | 1 core | 2 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$1.77 | Details |
| Standard 2 | 10 GB | 1 core | 2 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$27.12 | Details |
| Standard 3 | 15 GB | 2 cores | 2.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$37.12 | Details |
| Standard 4 | 20 GB | 2 cores | 3 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$48.55 | Details |
| Standard 5 | 30 GB | 2 cores | 3.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$68.55 | Details |
| Standard 6 | 40 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$84.26 | Details |
| Agency | 50 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$112.83 | Details |
| Agency 2 | 60 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$135.69 | Details |
| Agency 3 | 70 GB | 2 cores | 4.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$164.25 | Details |
| Agency 4 | 85 GB | 3 cores | 5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$207.11 | Details |
| Agency 5 | 100 GB | 3 cores | 5.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$249.96 | Details |
| Agency 6 | 120 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$299.96 | Details |
| Business | 140 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$371.38 | Details |
| Business 2 | 160 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$421.38 | Details |
| Business 3 | 180 GB | 3 cores | 6.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$478.51 | Details |
| Business 4 | 200 GB | 4 cores | 7.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$557.08 | Details |
| Business 5 | 250 GB | 4 cores | 7.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$707.07 | Details |
| Business 6 | 300 GB | 4 cores | 8 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$885.62 | Details |
A few things worth knowing before you order:
If you are testing the platform for the first time, the 14-day window gives you enough room to run your own benchmarks and support tests before committing to a longer term.
Performance claims are where hosting marketing and hosting reality tend to part ways, so this section is built entirely on live benchmarks I ran myself.
Antihost sells its VPS plans on AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D hardware with NVMe storage and unlimited traffic. My job here was to find out what that translates to on an actual running instance.
The test server:
One thing to flag before the numbers: the hypervisor reports the CPU as AMD EPYC-Genoa rather than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D advertised on the pricing page. This is normal virtualization behavior. KVM-based hosts often present a generic or masked CPU model to guests, so the label alone does not prove or disprove what silicon sits underneath. What I can verify is how the cores actually perform, which is what the benchmarks below measure.
I ran my standard Linux suite in order: sysbench for CPU and memory, fio for disk I/O, the Ookla Speedtest CLI for network (run twice to confirm consistency), and stress-ng to check stability under sustained load.
The sysbench CPU test calculates prime numbers up to 20,000, first on a single thread to measure raw per-core speed, then across all 8 threads to see how well the allocation scales.
Single-thread:
Multi-thread (8 threads):
The single-thread number is the one that jumped out at me. At 2,483 events per second, this is roughly 50% faster per core than the AMD EPYC instances I benchmarked at IP ServerOne, which landed between 1,610 and 1,666 events per second on the same test. Single-core speed is what most real workloads feel first.
PHP requests, database queries, and single-threaded application code all live or die on per-core throughput, and this result puts Antihost near the top of what I have measured on a VPS at this price.
The multi-thread scaling is just as clean. Eight threads delivered 19,290 events per second, which is 7.77x the single-thread result across 8 cores. That is near-linear scaling, and it means every vCPU is pulling its weight rather than one or two cores carrying the load. The thread fairness standard deviation of 23.42 confirms the work was distributed evenly.
The 95th percentile latency of 0.41ms, nearly identical to the average, tells you performance is consistent from one operation to the next. There is no stutter in these cores.
The sysbench memory test moves 10 GiB through RAM in 1K blocks, first writing, then reading.
Results:
These are exceptional figures. The IP ServerOne instances I tested averaged around 6,600 MiB/sec write and 7,400 MiB/sec read on the same test. Antihost came in roughly 47% faster on writes and 51% faster on reads.
Fast memory matters most for workloads that live in RAM. Redis, Memcached, in-memory session stores, and any application-level caching layer. At over 11 GiB/sec read throughput, the memory subsystem here will not be your bottleneck.
The write test also completed its full 10 GiB transfer in just over one second, which is the kind of detail that only shows up when the underlying memory configuration is fast and uncontended.
I used fio for three scenarios: sequential write, sequential read, and a mixed random 4K read/write test that simulates database-style access patterns.
Sequential performance:
Random 4K mixed:
This is where the NVMe claim gets proven rather than stated. Sequential reads at 3,891 MiB/s and writes at 1,977 MiB/s are an order of magnitude beyond what SATA SSD platforms deliver. As a comparison point, the SSD-backed cloud instances I tested at IP ServerOne topped out around 238 MiB/s sequential read. Antihost’s storage is running more than 16 times faster on the same test.
The random 4K result matters even more for real applications. Databases do not read files in neat sequential streams. They hammer the disk with small random operations, and 33,900 IOPS simultaneously on both read and write is a serious result for a VPS at this price. The IOPS held steady through the full 30-second run with a standard deviation under 800, meaning the performance is sustained rather than a burst cache emptying out.
If you are running PostgreSQL, MySQL, or anything else that depends on random I/O, this storage layer has more headroom than most workloads at this instance size will ever use.
I ran the Ookla Speedtest CLI twice to confirm the results were repeatable rather than a one-off.
Run 1:
Run 2:
Both runs landed within 1.5 Mbps of each other on download and just over 1 Mbps on upload. That level of repeatability tells me the connection is stable, not fluctuating with neighbor load.
The numbers themselves point clearly to a 1Gbps port running close to its practical ceiling. Real-world throughput on a gigabit line tops out around 940 Mbps once protocol overhead is accounted for, and Antihost delivered 938 to 940 Mbps on both runs. In practice, the port is saturated. You are getting everything the link can physically carry.
Zero packet loss on both runs and sub-0.5ms idle latency to a nearby test server round out a clean network result. The symmetry between download and upload also matters: plenty of providers quietly throttle upload, and Antihost does not.
The stress test is the benchmark that separates stable infrastructure from hardware that looks good for ten seconds. I ran stress-ng for 3 minutes per stressor: 8 CPU workers, 2 VM workers consuming 75% of available RAM, and 2 disk workers.
Results:
Zero failures across all three stressors, and zero metrics flagged as untrustworthy. Every worker that was dispatched completed its full 3-minute run.
The CPU stress figure also cross-checks the sysbench result. Sustained load across all 8 cores for 3 minutes produced 21,295 bogo ops per second with no throttling or degradation visible in the output. The memory stress test pushed nearly 11 GiB of allocated pressure through the instance and the numbers stayed high throughout.
The zero-failure result is the one that matters most. Fast peak numbers are easy to demonstrate. Holding those numbers under 3 minutes of continuous pressure across CPU, memory, and disk simultaneously is what tells you the host is not oversold.
This is one of the strongest single-instance benchmark sets I have recorded on a VPS in this price range. The single-thread CPU result of 2,483 events per second is roughly 50% ahead of the EPYC-based cloud instances I have tested recently, the memory subsystem cleared 11 GiB/sec on reads, and the NVMe storage delivered 33,900 random 4K IOPS while sustaining nearly 4 GB/s on sequential reads.
The network result completes the picture: a 1Gbps port running at its practical maximum of 938 to 940 Mbps on consecutive runs, with zero packet loss and symmetrical upload. Nothing in the connection is being quietly throttled.
The one open question is the CPU labeling. The hypervisor reports EPYC-Genoa while the marketing says Ryzen 9 9950X3D, and virtualization masking means I cannot resolve that from inside the guest. What I can say is that the per-core performance is consistent with modern high-clock AMD silicon and outruns every EPYC cloud instance I have benchmarked this year.
Whatever is under the hood, it is fast. Sustained, consistent, and with zero failures under stress, this instance delivers performance that comfortably exceeds what the Professional plan’s price point suggests. For CPU-bound applications, databases, and anything sensitive to disk latency, the numbers hold up.
Testing a provider’s ease of use means going through the whole experience from scratch: finding the right product on the website, placing an order, setting up the server, and working with the management interface day to day.
I did all of that with Antihost, and what I found is a product that sits in an interesting middle ground.
The flow is opinionated in a few places, and the setup process puts more control in your hands than most managed VPS panels will.
Antihost’s registration approach is different from most hosting providers I have tested. You do not create an account first and then browse plans. You pick a plan, go through checkout, and create an account as part of that process.
That is a product decision worth calling out upfront because it shapes the first impression.
Getting to the plans is not complicated. From the main navigation, hovering over Product opens a dropdown listing WordPress Hosting, VPS Hosting, an About Platform page, and five VPS One-Click Deploy options: Docker, n8n, Coolify, OpenClaw, and OpenVPN.
That last category tells you this is not a beginner-focused VPS product with hand-holding baked in. The one-click app section in the navigation signals that the expected buyer already knows what they want to run.
Clicking through to VPS Hosting brings you to a page headlined “VPS Hosting for Custom Setup” with the description “Built for teams that want to decide how their infrastructure works.”
Three plan tiers and a Custom Requirements option are on display, and the plan specs are clear:
All three plans run on the same AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D processor, include unlimited traffic, and show discounted pricing alongside the crossed-out full rate. That transparency stands out. I selected the Professional plan and clicked Get Deal.
This is where the checkout-first model kicks in. Rather than landing on an account creation page, I was taken directly into the checkout flow.
Step 1 covers the billing cycle and an optional one-click app. The billing cycle options run from month-to-month up to 36 months, with tiered discounts shown next to each option rather than buried in fine print:
I selected 12 months, which brought the Professional plan to $25.60 per month. The one-click app section offered N8N, Docker, Openclaw, Coolify, and OpenVPN as optional pre-installs. I left it as No App since I wanted a clean OS for benchmarking.
Step 2 handled account creation. A modal appeared with two paths: sign up manually (first name, last name, email, password) or continue with Google.
The Google option is a convenience most VPS-focused providers skip. I created an account, and the step confirmed my identity with a name, email, and a Continue button.
The payment screen offered Credit/Debit Card via Stripe or Bank Transfer. The order summary showed a 20% one-time discount already applied and the 14-day money-back guarantee displayed next to the Place Order button.
After entering my card details and clicking Place Order, I was charged immediately, received a confirmation email, and was taken to the client area.
The checkout-first model is a trade-off. You are committed financially before you have seen the management panel or verified what you are getting.
For buyers who already know the product, this is fine. For anyone evaluating for the first time, that is worth keeping in mind. The flow itself is fast, the discount structure is among the clearest I have seen at this price point, and the Google signup option removes one small piece of friction.
After completing my purchase, I landed in the client area. The panel runs on VirtFusion, confirmed by the footer branding. Anyone who has used a VirtFusion-based panel before will be immediately familiar with the layout.
The first thing I encountered was an email verification banner asking me to enter a code from my inbox. The prompt explains what happens if you skip it, so it does not feel arbitrary. I entered the code and moved on.
The dashboard layout divides into three columns:
Below those three columns, the Recent Servers and Bookmarked Servers tabs cover your server inventory. Recent Servers shows each machine with its specs, status badge, creation date, IP address, and a Manage button. A Recently Completed Tasks table sits at the bottom of the page and populates as you provision and rebuild servers over time.
The top navigation stays simple throughout: Dashboard, Servers, SSH Keys, Account, and a profile dropdown. Nothing is buried more than one click deep.
Two-factor authentication is off by default. The toggle is visible right on the dashboard, which I appreciated. There is no excuse for missing it. I would enable it before doing anything else.
What the dashboard does not do is guide new users. If your server shows “Awaiting Setup” with no explanation of what that means or what to do next, you are expected to figure it out yourself. For the target audience, that is probably fine. For anyone newer to VPS hosting, the dashboard offers no signal about where to start.
To set up my server, I clicked Manage next to the Awaiting Setup entry in the Recent Servers list. This opened the Server Setup page, where I configured and installed the OS on the provisioned machine.
The setup page is organized into four meaningful areas: Name, Operating System, Swap Space, and SSH Keys, with an Advanced section below.
Name and hostname: I set the server name to HA-Antihost-US and added the hostname ha-antihost-US.test. The hostname is optional and clearly marked.
A Random button auto-generates a server name if you want to skip that step.
Timezone: The default is UTC+00:00 Europe/London. I changed this to UTC-05:00 America/New_York to match the server’s region. The timezone is not auto-detected from the server location, so it is a manual step.
Operating System: The OS picker lists eight categories that expand on click: AlmaLinux, CentOS, Debian, Fedora, Other, Rocky Linux, Services, and Ubuntu. That is a broader range than most VirtFusion-based panels I have tested. Fedora stood out because it offers both Fedora 42 Minimal and Fedora 43 Minimal with brief descriptions of how package management works on each. I selected Fedora 42 Minimal.
Swap Space: The options run from None to 1.5GB, with 1GB pre-selected. The page explains that swap is reserved from your storage disk, which is a useful detail since it directly affects your available working storage.
SSH Keys: The most important section on this page, and Antihost handles it well. An orange-bordered warning reads:
“Adding an SSH key will help keep your server secure by allowing us to disable password authentication. If you don’t add one, we will enable password authentication and email you the root/admin password once the server has been built.”
You are not blocked from proceeding without a key, but the consequence of skipping is spelled out clearly.
I clicked Add Key, pasted my ED25519 public key, named it HA-Antihost, and saved it. The key appeared in the SSH Keys section with a green checkmark confirming it would be injected at installation time.
Advanced: A VNC toggle, off by default, with the explanation that you can enable it later. No pressure to make a call on it here.
DNS: Resolvers default to 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1, and can be swapped if your workload requires custom resolvers.
With everything configured, the install button updated to read Install with Fedora 42. Clicking it triggered a confirmation modal asking me to confirm the OS before writing anything to disk. After clicking Install Now, the page transitioned to a terminal-style progress screen showing each build step with live status.
The first four steps completed immediately: gathering build configuration, configuring DHCP, setting network traffic limits, and creating the configuration. The OS preparation step showed a live percentage counter as Fedora was written to disk.
I noted the time I clicked Install Now. When I returned to the server overview after the build completed, the task log showed a build time of 21 seconds from request to completion. That is remarkably fast. Most providers I have tested take anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes to go from install to running. Antihost got there in under half a minute.
The terminal-style progress display is a considered design choice. A live view of what the build process is doing is more informative than a spinner, and it gives you something concrete to document if a build fails partway through.
Once the server was running, clicking through to the instance opened a six-tab management interface: Overview, Media, Options, Network, Storage, and Sharing. The RUNNING status badge stayed visible in the top-right corner throughout.
Overview is the landing tab, and it packs in a lot without feeling cluttered. The left panel shows the server name, hostname, loader type (BIOS), and the creation date. Three icon buttons handle refresh, server lock, and settings. The right side splits across three cards:
Below the cards, a Statistics section with a dropdown sits above the task log. The task log is where the 21-second build time showed up, with the exact request timestamp, duration, and a COMPLETE badge. That log is useful for tracking provisioning history and surfacing any failed builds over time.
The action buttons across the top of the page are Boot, Shutdown, Restart, Power Off, and Rebuild. The Rebuild option is the one that gets your attention. It’s the only button styled in red, which is the right call. One misclick there would wipe the OS and start from scratch.
Options extends the power management buttons and adds four sub-tabs underneath: VNC, Rescue, Password, and Settings.
VNC is what you reach for if SSH stops responding and you need a direct console connection. The description is honest: “You should only enable this option if you are having issues or need to install using CD/DVD media.”
The Rescue and Password tabs cover the other emergency scenarios: booting into rescue mode and resetting credentials without OS access. For a provider at this price point, having all three emergency access methods reachable from a single tab is a detail that matters in practice. I have tested providers that bury rescue mode behind a support ticket.
Network gives you the full picture of your primary network interface.
The IPv4 Addresses table shows your assigned address, the gateway, netmask, and resolvers. The standout feature here is the per-address Reverse DNS button. Setting rDNS from the panel rather than raising a support ticket is a meaningful convenience for anyone running a mail server.
Inbound and outbound speeds show as ∞, which reflects the unlimited traffic policy across all VPS plans. DNS resolvers can be swapped from this tab directly, giving you two places to change them (here and during initial setup).
Storage shows your attached drives with a primary badge, size, and an active toggle.
The storage tab is minimal. For what it covers (confirming the drive is attached and active), it works. What is absent is anything more advanced: no snapshot management, no volume expansion controls, no disk benchmarking tool. If storage management is a regular part of your workflow, you are doing it at the OS level rather than from this panel.
Sharing is the tab I did not expect at this price point.
It lets you grant another user access to your server via a token. The main panel confirms you are not currently sharing the instance, and the Shared Access card on the right provides the token field and Grant Access button.
For teams where a developer needs to hand off a server to an ops person or a client, this removes the need to share credentials directly. It is a small feature, but it is the kind of thing that signals Antihost is thinking about multi-person workflows rather than just solo use.
Antihost is a product built for people who know what they are doing and want to get on with it. The checkout flow, the minimal dashboard, and the server management interface all reflect that. The strong parts are real: a fast checkout with transparent pricing, an SSH key warning that actually explains the consequence of skipping it, a 21-second build time that is among the fastest I have tested, and management tabs that surface the right information without overwhelming you.
The rough edges are also consistent with that same philosophy. There is no onboarding for new users, the dashboard offers no guidance if your server is sitting at Awaiting Setup, and the storage management tab is bare compared to what providers like IP ServerOne surface from the same screen. The checkout-first model puts you on the hook financially before you have seen the interface.
If you have managed a VPS before, Antihost’s interface will feel familiar and clean. If this is your first VPS, plan for a steeper learning curve than most managed or shared hosting panels will prepare you for.
I tested Antihost’s support through two channels with two different questions, one via ticket and one via live chat, and documented everything: submission time, response time, who answered, and whether the answer was actually correct.
Antihost offers two support channels from what I could access:
One thing to know before you need support: the ticket system lives on the main Antihost site, not inside the VirtFusion server management panel.
If you are in the middle of a server issue and need to raise a ticket, you are opening a new browser tab and going to the main site.
To open a ticket, I clicked Open Ticket in the navigation and landed on a clean WHMCS-based submission form.
The form collects:
A useful touch on the right side of the form: a Knowledgebase Suggestions panel that searches as you type your ticket message. If your issue has a documented answer, it surfaces before you even submit.
I submitted the following question on 18 August 2026 at 05:52:
“During my testing, lscpu on my running instance reports the CPU as AMD EPYC-Genoa, but your pricing page lists AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D. Can you clarify what processor is actually powering these VPS instances? Are the vCPUs allocated from EPYC-Genoa hardware, Ryzen 9 9950X3D hardware, or a mix depending on the host node?”
This is not a question anyone can answer by pulling a documentation page. It requires knowing how their hypervisor is configured and whether the marketing claims match the actual host hardware. After submitting, the confirmation screen displayed the ticket reference number and confirmed an email had been sent.
The first and only response came at 09:04 the same day, from Sergey Serpichenko, listed as Operator. That is 3 hours and 12 minutes from submission.
His response:
“Hi! I checked this with our infrastructure team. The VPS you’re testing is running on a host powered by an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D. The AMD EPYC-Genoa name you see from inside the VPS is the CPU model exposed by the hypervisor, so it doesn’t necessarily reflect the actual physical CPU of the host. So in this case, your vCPUs are backed by Ryzen 9 9950X3D hardware, not EPYC-Genoa. The CPU model reported from within the VM isn’t a reliable way to identify the underlying host processor.”
A few things stand out here. First, Sergey did not answer from memory. He flagged it with the infrastructure team before responding, which is the right call for a hardware-level question. Second, the answer goes beyond a yes or no.
He confirmed the marketing claim is accurate, explained why lscpu shows EPYC-Genoa (hypervisor CPU masking), and noted that the guest-reported CPU model is not a reliable indicator of the physical host. That is a technically correct and complete answer.
It also resolves the discrepancy I flagged in the Performance section, which I can now report with confidence rather than leave as an open question.
The 3-hour 12-minute response window is reasonable for a technical ticket that required escalation to an infrastructure team. It was not instant, but the quality of the response justifies the wait.
The live chat widget sits in the bottom-right corner of the Antihost website and showed a green online indicator.
The widget promised a response in a few minutes. I sent my question at 2:40pm:
“Is port 25 open by default on new VPS instances, or is outbound SMTP blocked? I want to run a mail server.”
The first response came within a minute, from Anastasiia R:
“Hi! I’ve forwarded your question to our technical team. I’ll get back to you as soon as I have their answer.”
The final answer arrived at 2:44pm, four minutes after I sent my question:
“Port 25 is not blocked on our VPS instances, so outbound SMTP traffic is allowed and you can use the VPS to run a mail server.”
Anastasiia did not guess. She admitted she did not have the answer immediately, escalated to someone who did, and came back with a specific, correct response in under four minutes.
That’s a better outcome than an agent who fires back a confident but wrong answer without checking.
Port 25 being open by default is also a meaningful detail for anyone reading this review. Many VPS providers block it to prevent spam abuse and require account verification before they will open it. Antihost leaves it open out of the box, which matters if you are planning to run a mail server.
Two channels, two different questions, two technically correct answers. The live chat resolved in 4 minutes and the ticket came back in just over 3 hours, both with agents who consulted the right people before responding.
What I found most telling is that neither agent tried to bluff. Anastasiia flagged the question before answering it. Sergey checked with the infrastructure team before confirming the CPU question. That pattern signals a support team that knows the limits of what it can answer off the top of its head, which matters more than raw response speed when your production server is down.
The ticket system being on a separate site from the VirtFusion panel is a friction point, but a minor one. The WHMCS portal is organized and the ticket form has everything you need including priority selection and attachment support.
The few-minutes promise on the chat widget proved accurate, and the quality of the answer matched the speed.
Antihost’s support will not win awards for channel variety. There is no phone line and no dedicated account manager. What they do offer, they do well: live chat backed by people who check before they answer, and ticket responses that are worth reading when they arrive.
Yes, with a clear sense of who it is for. Antihost is built for developers and teams who know how to manage a VPS and want raw performance without a lot of hand-holding. The benchmark numbers back that up: fast single-core CPU results, excellent memory throughput, and NVMe storage that delivers real random I/O performance rather than a spec sheet claim.
Support held up under real testing too. Both the ticket and live chat teams gave accurate, verified answers rather than guessing, which matters more than response speed alone.
Where Antihost falls short is onboarding. There is no guidance for a first-time VPS buyer, and the checkout-first model means you commit financially before seeing the panel. If you are new to VPS hosting, expect a steeper learning curve than a managed platform would give you.
For developers, small teams, and anyone comfortable configuring their own server, Antihost is a strong pick that outperforms its price point.
| Plan Name | Space | CPU | RAM | Warranty | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standart 1 | 5 GB | 1 core | 2 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$1.77 | Details |
| Standard 2 | 10 GB | 1 core | 2 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$27.12 | Details |
| Standard 3 | 15 GB | 2 cores | 2.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$37.12 | Details |
| Standard 4 | 20 GB | 2 cores | 3 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$48.55 | Details |
| Standard 5 | 30 GB | 2 cores | 3.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$68.55 | Details |
| Standard 6 | 40 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$84.26 | Details |
| Agency | 50 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$112.83 | Details |
| Agency 2 | 60 GB | 2 cores | 4 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$135.69 | Details |
| Agency 3 | 70 GB | 2 cores | 4.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$164.25 | Details |
| Agency 4 | 85 GB | 3 cores | 5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$207.11 | Details |
| Agency 5 | 100 GB | 3 cores | 5.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$249.96 | Details |
| Agency 6 | 120 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$299.96 | Details |
| Business | 140 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$371.38 | Details |
| Business 2 | 160 GB | 3 cores | 6 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$421.38 | Details |
| Business 3 | 180 GB | 3 cores | 6.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$478.51 | Details |
| Business 4 | 200 GB | 4 cores | 7.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$557.08 | Details |
| Business 5 | 250 GB | 4 cores | 7.5 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$707.07 | Details |
| Business 6 | 300 GB | 4 cores | 8 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$885.62 | Details |
| Plan Name | CPU | RAM | Bandwidth | Warranty | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard 1 | 1 core | 2 GB | 19.97 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$1.77 | Details |
| Standard 2 | 1 core | 2 GB | 40.04 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$27.12 | Details |
| Standard 3 | 2 cores | 2.5 GB | 60.01 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$37.12 | Details |
| Standard 4 | 2 cores | 3 GB | 79.97 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$48.55 | Details |
| Standard 5 | 2 cores | 3.5 GB | 120.01 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$68.55 | Details |
| Standard 6 | 2 cores | 4 GB | 150.02 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$84.26 | Details |
| Agency 1 | 2 cores | 4 GB | 249.96 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$112.83 | Details |
| Agency 2 | 2 cores | 4 GB | 300.03 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$135.69 | Details |
| Agency 3 | 2 cores | 4.5 GB | 399.97 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$164.25 | Details |
| Agency 4 | 3 cores | 5 GB | 499.92 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$207.11 | Details |
| Agency 5 | 3 cores | 5.5 GB | 650.04 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$249.96 | Details |
| Agency 6 | 3 cores | 6 GB | 800.05 GB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$299.96 | Details |
| Business 1 | 3 cores | 6 GB | 1 TB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$371.38 | Details |
| Business 2 | 3 cores | 6 GB | 1.5 TB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$421.38 | Details |
| Business 3 | 3 cores | 6.5 GB | 2 TB | NZ$0.00 | NZ$478.51 | Details |
| Business 4 | 4 cores | 7 GB | Unlimited | NZ$0.00 | NZ$557.08 | Details |
| Business 5 | 4 cores | 7.5 GB | Unlimited | NZ$0.00 | NZ$707.07 | Details |
| Business 6 | 4 cores | 8 GB | Unlimited | NZ$0.00 | NZ$885.62 | Details |
Yes. Antihost delivers strong CPU, memory, and disk performance backed by NVMe storage and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D processors. Support is accurate and responsive on both ticket and live chat channels, though the platform assumes some existing VPS experience.
Antihost may offer a 14-day test period with full access. If you cancel within that window, you can request a refund of your hosting subscription fee, though domain registrations and third-party services are non-refundable.
Antihost VPS is built for developers and teams running custom infrastructure, including Docker containers, n8n automation, Coolify deployments, and OpenVPN servers. One-click deploy options are available for all of these during checkout.
Antihost follows a no lock-in model. You can cancel anytime before your next billing cycle through the billing system, with no penalties. Your service remains active through the end of the current billing period, and you should download your backups before it ends.
Yes. Port 25 is open by default on Antihost VPS instances, confirmed directly by their support team during testing. Outbound SMTP traffic is not blocked, so mail server deployment works without needing to request access first.
Answer a few simple questions and find the perfect solution for you!
Start Hosting Search
