▮▮Coloprice

Market comparison

Beijing, China vs Guangzhou, China

Both columns are built from the catalog and the price index: Beijing — 30 facilities from 15 operators, Guangzhou — 16 facilities from 4 operators. Where a benchmark or a tariff is not published, the cell says so.

Markets side by side

FieldBeijingGuangzhou
Tracked facilities3016
Operators154
Published IT capacity111 MW (2 of 30 sites publish)not published
Operational3016
Under construction / announced00
Tier III+ certified sites811
Sites with any certification1312
Liquid-cooled sites00
AI-ready sites10
Wholesale benchmark, $/kW/monthnot publishednot published
Benchmark change, yoynot publishednot published
Industrial power tariff, $/kWhnot publishednot published
Average Coloprice Score16/100 across 30 sites16/100 across 16 sites
Latency between the twonot published

Counts are the Coloprice catalog as of 2026-09-26; benchmarks are the Colocation Price Index (Q3 2026). Operators publish some facts and not others — an empty cell means «not published», not zero.

Where they differ

Only fields both sides publish and where the values are not identical. This is not a judgement: the right choice depends on the workload, the contract and the site.

  • Tracked facilities: Beijing — 30; Guangzhou — 16
  • Operators: Beijing — 15; Guangzhou — 4
  • Operational: Beijing — 30; Guangzhou — 16
  • Tier III+ certified sites: Beijing — 8; Guangzhou — 11
  • Sites with any certification: Beijing — 13; Guangzhou — 12
  • AI-ready sites: Beijing — 1; Guangzhou — 0
  • Average Coloprice Score: Beijing — 16/100 across 30 sites; Guangzhou — 16/100 across 16 sites

Published for only one side: Published IT capacity.

Top facilities by score

Beijing, China

Open Beijing data centers →Open Guangzhou data centers →Colocation pricing in Beijing →Colocation pricing in Guangzhou →

Other comparisons

Beijing vs ShanghaiBeijing vs TianjinGuangzhou vs ShanghaiGuangzhou vs Tianjin