▮▮Coloprice

Market comparison

Shanghai, China vs Tianjin, China

Both columns are built from the catalog and the price index: Shanghai — 28 facilities from 12 operators, Tianjin — 12 facilities from 7 operators. Where a benchmark or a tariff is not published, the cell says so.

Markets side by side

FieldShanghaiTianjin
Tracked facilities2812
Operators127
Published IT capacity42 MW (1 of 28 sites publish)not published
Operational2712
Under construction / announced10
Tier III+ certified sites152
Sites with any certification175
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 Score17/100 across 28 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: Shanghai — 28; Tianjin — 12
  • Operators: Shanghai — 12; Tianjin — 7
  • Operational: Shanghai — 27; Tianjin — 12
  • Under construction / announced: Shanghai — 1; Tianjin — 0
  • Tier III+ certified sites: Shanghai — 15; Tianjin — 2
  • Sites with any certification: Shanghai — 17; Tianjin — 5
  • AI-ready sites: Shanghai — 1; Tianjin — 0
  • Average Coloprice Score: Shanghai — 17/100 across 28 sites; Tianjin — 11/100 across 12 sites

Published for only one side: Published IT capacity.

Top facilities by score

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

Other comparisons

Beijing vs ShanghaiGuangzhou vs ShanghaiBeijing vs TianjinGuangzhou vs Tianjin