While both ping and traceroute are diagnostic tools that measure network latency, they operate at fundamentally different levels:

// Ping operation (simplified)
function ping(destination) {
  startTime = getCurrentTime();
  sendICMPEchoRequest(destination);
  response = waitForICMPEchoReply();
  endTime = getCurrentTime();
  return endTime - startTime;
}

// Traceroute operation (simplified)
function traceroute(destination) {
  for (ttl = 1; ttl <= MAX_HOPS; ttl++) {
    for (probe = 0; probe < PROBES_PER_HOP; probe++) {
      startTime = getCurrentTime();
      sendPacketWithTTL(destination, ttl);
      response = waitForTTLExceededOrDestination();
      endTime = getCurrentTime();
      recordLatency(ttl, endTime - startTime);
    }
  }
}

Traceroute's increased duration stems from several protocol-level factors:

• TTL Incrementation: Each hop requires packets with sequentially increasing TTL values
• Multiple Probes: Typically 3 packets per hop (configurable)
• ICMP vs UDP/TCP: Many implementations use UDP/TCP for probes and wait for ICMP responses
• Firewall Handling: Intermediate nodes may rate-limit or block ICMP Time Exceeded messages

Consider this Python implementation showing the time difference:

import subprocess
import time

def measure_ping(target):
    start = time.time()
    subprocess.run(["ping", "-c", "1", target], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
    return time.time() - start

def measure_traceroute(target):
    start = time.time()
    subprocess.run(["traceroute", "-m", "15", target], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
    return time.time() - start

google = "google.com"
print(f"Ping duration: {measure_ping(google):.2f}s")
print(f"Traceroute duration: {measure_traceroute(google):.2f}s")

The operating system's network stack handles these tools differently:

For developers needing faster route tracing:

# Linux fast traceroute alternative
mtr --report --report-cycles 1 google.com

# Windows alternative (requires admin)
pathping -n -q 1 -p 50 google.com

These tools provide similar information to traceroute but with optimizations that reduce the total measurement time.

While both ping and traceroute serve as network diagnostic tools, they employ fundamentally different methodologies that explain their time disparity:

// Ping operation (simplified)
send_ICMP_echo_request(destination);
start_timer();
wait_for_ICMP_echo_reply();
stop_timer();
record_rtt(); // Single round-trip measurement

// Traceroute operation (simplified)
for (ttl = 1; ttl <= max_hops; ttl++) {
    set_packet_ttl(ttl);
    send_3_probes();
    await_responses();
    record_hop_latency();
    if (reached_destination) break;
}

Traceroute's extended duration stems from three architectural factors:

• Sequential Probing: Each hop requires waiting for timeout before proceeding
• Multi-Packet Transmission: Typically sends 3 packets per hop (default)
• TTL Incrementation: Must rebuild packets with increasing TTL values

Consider this real-world scenario where we compare both tools:

# Sample ping output (Linux)
$ ping -c 4 google.com
PING google.com (142.250.190.46) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from lhr48s21-in-f14.1e100.net (142.250.190.46): icmp_seq=1 ttl=117 time=11.7 ms
64 bytes from lhr48s21-in-f14.1e100.net (142.250.190.46): icmp_seq=2 ttl=117 time=11.6 ms
64 bytes from lhr48s21-in-f14.1e100.net (142.250.190.46): icmp_seq=3 ttl=117 time=11.4 ms

# Corresponding traceroute
$ traceroute google.com
traceroute to google.com (142.250.190.46), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  _gateway (192.168.1.1)  1.210 ms  1.087 ms  1.052 ms
 2  96.120.112.1 (96.120.112.1)  10.412 ms  10.387 ms  10.361 ms
 3  agg61.nycmny837h02r.northeast.rr.com (24.58.32.8)  12.584 ms  12.670 ms  12.645 ms
 [...]
12  lhr48s21-in-f14.1e100.net (142.250.190.46)  11.912 ms  11.887 ms  11.861 ms

The cumulative effect becomes apparent when we calculate total probe time:

# Python-style calculation
ping_total_time = sum([34, 34, 34, 34])  # ~136ms for 4 pings

traceroute_hops = [1, 7, 108, 2, 1, 1, 2, ...]  # From OP's example
traceroute_total_time = sum(hops) * 3  # 3 probes per hop
# Result is typically 3-5x longer than ping equivalent

When speed is critical, consider these alternatives:

# Linux fast traceroute alternative
$ traceroute -N 32 -q 1 google.com  # Use 32 parallel probes, 1 query per hop

# Windows equivalent
> tracert -d -h 10 google.com  # Limit hops, disable DNS resolution

# Python implementation using scapy (faster than OS tools)
from scapy.all import *
ans, unans = traceroute("google.com", maxttl=20, fast=True)
ans.show()