▮▮Coloprice

Market comparison

Guangzhou, China vs Shanghai, China

Both columns are built from the catalog and the price index: Guangzhou — 16 facilities from 4 operators, Shanghai — 28 facilities from 12 operators. Where a benchmark or a tariff is not published, the cell says so.

Markets side by side

FieldGuangzhouShanghai
Tracked facilities1628
Operators412
Published IT capacitynot published42 MW (1 of 28 sites publish)
Operational1627
Under construction / announced01
Tier III+ certified sites1115
Sites with any certification1217
Liquid-cooled sites00
AI-ready sites01
Wholesale benchmark, $/kW/monthnot publishednot published
Benchmark change, yoynot publishednot published
Industrial power tariff, $/kWhnot publishednot published
Average Coloprice Score16/100 across 16 sites17/100 across 28 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: Guangzhou — 16; Shanghai — 28
  • Operators: Guangzhou — 4; Shanghai — 12
  • Operational: Guangzhou — 16; Shanghai — 27
  • Under construction / announced: Guangzhou — 0; Shanghai — 1
  • Tier III+ certified sites: Guangzhou — 11; Shanghai — 15
  • Sites with any certification: Guangzhou — 12; Shanghai — 17
  • AI-ready sites: Guangzhou — 0; Shanghai — 1
  • Average Coloprice Score: Guangzhou — 16/100 across 16 sites; Shanghai — 17/100 across 28 sites

Published for only one side: Published IT capacity.

Top facilities by score

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

Other comparisons

Beijing vs GuangzhouGuangzhou vs TianjinBeijing vs ShanghaiShanghai vs Tianjin