Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Compute
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- akash.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Akash Network
Cosmos-based compute marketplace
Decentralised Compute
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 decentralised compute in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Akash Network right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour7/10; the category best is 8
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply7/10, the category best
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability9/10, the category best
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best compute network shows where it lands for you.
What will Akash Network cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Akash Network?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Akash Network
Compare all 4- 2Nosana4 points below · stronger on dc price transparency (8 against 7)75
- 3io.net17 points below · weaker on dc utilisation disclosure (4 against 9)62
- 4Fluence20 points below · weaker on dc utilisation disclosure (2 against 9)59
For your setup
Find out if Akash Network fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Akash Network lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best compute networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Akash Network ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
307+6.725.08#2/7Loading evidence…
307+6.723.07#1/7Loading evidence…
209+5.763.09#1/7Loading evidence…
203+1.923.04#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+4over Nosana, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–80 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Akash Network’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour 7 → 4 on its ladder · Nosana passes it−377#1 → #2
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply 7 → 4 on its ladder · Nosana passes it−377#1 → #2
Published Utilisation and Live Availability 9 → 5 on its ladder · Nosana passes it−478#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply — 7/10, the category best
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- The entire network was 426 GPUs at the 15 September 2026 read, and H100 capacity is 69 cards held by four providers. One operator withdrawing is a double-digit-percent capacity event, and there is no reservation or queue mechanism to protect an in-flight workload. Rates are bands of provider bids (h100 $2.04–$3.16/hr), not one firm rate.
- My fetch of the same endpoint on 5 Aug 2026 returned H100 min $1.02, avg $2.33, weightedAverage $2.61 — while med $2.56 and max $3.16 held exactly, across two fetches minutes apart. The median and max are the durable numbers; the min is transient and should not be quoted as a headline without a timestamp. Everything else verified exactly: 24 models, H100 71 cards / 4 providers, H200 40 cards / 2 providers at $4.37 flat, A100 min $1.13 / max $1.83 / avg $1.55, rtx4090 $0.28-$0.38, rtx5090 $0.59-$0.71, gtx1050 $0.06, USD and uakt both returned, no auth required. Read again 15 September 2026: the feed lists 26 NVIDIA models (4 with no price); h100 read min $2.04 / med $2.55 / max $3.16 across 69 cards and 4 providers and h200 $4.44 flat across 40 cards, and every h100 statistic was identical in two fetches nearly five hours apart, so no within-day drift was observed.
- Drifted within the same day: my fetch returned total 445 / available 325 (120 leased, ~27% utilisation) and H100 20 of 71 idle. Directionally identical and the conclusion is unaffected — A100 verified exactly at 216 of 240 idle (10% utilised) — but live-feed figures must carry a fetch timestamp, since a reader checking the API will not reproduce 330. Read again 15 September 2026: the network read 426 GPUs with 140 available (about 67% leased), h100 15 of 69 available and a100 50 of 206 available, so the low utilisation described here no longer holds.
Competitive position
Where Akash Network leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 715.8 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Akash Network leads
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour#2 / 7
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply#1 / 7
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability#1 / 7
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job#2 / 7
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Nosana#2 of 7 · score 75 · 4.0 points behind
Akash Network leads on
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply7 vs 6
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability9 vs 7
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job3 vs 2
Nosana leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour8 vs 7
Largest single reason Akash Network is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Nosana has no verified pricing for this scenario.
io.net#3 of 7 · score 62 · 17.0 points behind
Akash Network leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour7 vs 5
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply7 vs 4
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability9 vs 4
io.net leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Akash Network is ahead: published criteria (+16.6 display points).Scenario cost: io.net has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fluence#4 of 7 · score 59 · 20.0 points behind
Akash Network leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour7 vs 5
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply7 vs 3
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability9 vs 2
Fluence leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Akash Network is ahead: published criteria (+19.8 display points).Scenario cost: Fluence has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
79 vs 75 · gap 4.0Why Akash Network ranks above Nosana
DimensionThisNosanaGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.814.4+3.6, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisNosanaPoints
Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour · w3078−0.96, worse
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply · w3076+0.96, better
Published Utilisation and Live Availability · w2097+1.28, better
Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job · w2032+0.64, better
Net7975+4.0
Your scenario
Akash Network is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hourstrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Verified vs Self-Reported Supplystrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Published Utilisation and Live Availabilitystrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Jobstrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Execution failure (Akash Network 3/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job · 20%
- Information failure (Akash Network 7/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Verified vs Self-Reported Supply · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour (30%), Published Utilisation and Live Availability (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Live from Akash's own console API (fetched 15 Sep 2026, 19:31 UTC): h100 80Gi SXM5 — min $2.04, max $3.16, avg $2.58, med $2.55/hr, 4 providers, 69 cards / 15 available; a100 80Gi SXM4 — min $1.07, max $1.91, avg $1.70, med $1.84/hr, 7 providers, 206 cards / 50 available; h200 141Gi SXM5 — $4.44/hr flat, 2 providers, 40 cards / 16 available; rtx4090 24Gi — $0.28–$0.77/hr (med $0.34); rtx5090 32Gi — $0.57–$0.71/hr; gtx1050 2Gi — $0.05/hr. 26 NVIDIA models listed in USD and uakt, 4 of them with no price. Network-wide 426 GPUs / 140 available (~67% leased). Figures are live and move between fetches; quote them with the timestamp.Akash Network — Console API GPU price feed ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAkash Network — Console API GPU price feed ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Akash Network: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
8 methodology entries
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #1 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt decentralised_compute:akash_dcompute:2026.10.18:9c837a03b7fd
Are you Akash Network? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.