▮▮Coloprice

Market comparison

Guangzhou, China vs Tianjin, China

Both columns are built from the catalog and the price index: Guangzhou — 16 facilities from 4 operators, Tianjin — 12 facilities from 7 operators. Where a benchmark or a tariff is not published, the cell says so.

Markets side by side

FieldGuangzhouTianjin
Tracked facilities1612
Operators47
Published IT capacitynot publishednot published
Operational1612
Under construction / announced00
Tier III+ certified sites112
Sites with any certification125
Liquid-cooled sites00
AI-ready sites00
Wholesale benchmark, $/kW/monthnot publishednot published
Benchmark change, yoynot publishednot published
Industrial power tariff, $/kWhnot publishednot published
Average Coloprice Score16/100 across 16 sites11/100 across 12 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; Tianjin — 12
  • Operators: Guangzhou — 4; Tianjin — 7
  • Operational: Guangzhou — 16; Tianjin — 12
  • Tier III+ certified sites: Guangzhou — 11; Tianjin — 2
  • Sites with any certification: Guangzhou — 12; Tianjin — 5
  • Average Coloprice Score: Guangzhou — 16/100 across 16 sites; Tianjin — 11/100 across 12 sites

Top facilities by score

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

Other comparisons

Beijing vs GuangzhouGuangzhou vs ShanghaiBeijing vs TianjinShanghai vs Tianjin