▮▮Coloprice

Operator comparison

Green Mountain vs Skygard

Both columns come from the facilities each operator publishes and Coloprice tracks: Green Mountain — 3 facilities in 1 countries, Skygard — 3 facilities in 1 countries. Score is the independent Coloprice Score of each facility, averaged; it is never sold.

Portfolios side by side

FieldGreen MountainSkygard
Tracked facilities33
Countries11
Cities31
Published IT capacity150 MW (3 of 3 sites publish)36 MW (3 of 3 sites publish)
Operational33
Under construction / announced00
Liquid-cooled sites00
AI-ready sites10
Most common certificationsUptime Institute Tier III Certification of Constructed Facility, Uptime Institute Tier III Certification of Design Documentsnot published
Average Coloprice Score46/100 across 3 scored sites24/100 across 3 scored sites
Awards and badges71
Highest-scored facilityGreen Mountain DC2-Telemark (55/100)Skygard OSL1 (25/100)

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.

  • Cities: Green Mountain — 3; Skygard — 1
  • Published IT capacity: Green Mountain — 150 MW (3 of 3 sites publish); Skygard — 36 MW (3 of 3 sites publish)
  • AI-ready sites: Green Mountain — 1; Skygard — 0
  • Average Coloprice Score: Green Mountain — 46/100 across 3 scored sites; Skygard — 24/100 across 3 scored sites
  • Awards and badges: Green Mountain — 7; Skygard — 1
  • Highest-scored facility: Green Mountain — Green Mountain DC2-Telemark (55/100); Skygard — Skygard OSL1 (25/100)

Published for only one side: Most common certifications.

Highest-scored facility

Open Green Mountain profile →Open Skygard profile →