Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Compute
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- fluence.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 59 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Fluence
CPU and GPU cloud
Decentralised Compute
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 decentralised compute in the published ranking
59
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Fluence right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour5/10 here; the category best is 8
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply3/10 here; io.net scores 4
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability2/10 here; io.net scores 4
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 Fluence cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Fluence?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Fluence
Compare all 4- 3io.net3 points above · stronger on dc utilisation disclosure (4 against 2)62
- 5Aethir4 points below · stronger on dc failure recourse (4 against 3)55
- 6Golem Network6 points below · stronger on dc utilisation disclosure (3 against 2)53
For your setup
Find out if Fluence fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Fluence 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 this rank
Why Fluence ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
305+4.805.08#3/7Loading evidence…
303+2.883.07#4/7Loading evidence…
202+1.283.09#5/7Loading 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−3behind io.net, #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 57–61 and stays #4
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 Fluence’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 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes io.net+263#4 → #3
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes io.net+263#4 → #3
Published Utilisation and Live Availability 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes io.net+363#4 → #3
Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes io.net+363#4 → #3
Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour 5 → 3 on its ladder · Aethir passes it−255#4 → #5
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply 3 → 1 on its ladder · Aethir passes it−255#4 → #5
Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job 3 → 0 on its ladder · Aethir passes it−355#4 → #5
Smallest climb: fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour 5 → 7 passes io.net, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply — 3/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The 'up to 85%' headline sits beside hyperscaler baselines for the H200 ('AWS Cloud $7.90/hr', 'Google Cloud $10.84/hr'); against CoreWeave's '$6.30/hr' on the same page, Fluence's $2.80 is about 56% lower. Also the newest entrant to GPU here: containers shipped October 2025.
- REFUTED by first-party source dated one day BEFORE the research fetch. Fluence's 4 Aug 2026 post announces the platform opened with '6,000+ GPUs across 13 countries' and publishes per-model, per-country inventory: H100 x176 in South Korea, H200 x1024 in East US, B300 x1024 in US, B200 x1024 in Canada. This is a named, quantified, per-model fleet disclosure — more granular than Aethir (score 4) and io.net (score 2). Score 3 is not defensible; rescore to ~6 (self-reported in a blog post, not machine-readable, so below Akash/Nosana). Read again 15 September 2026: the live marketplace reads '6468 GPUs available across 4 countries' and lists the 176 H100s under Europe, its North America card reads '6,212 /6,212 GPUS AVAILABLE' while its two model rows add to 5,188, and the counts are self-listed HTML with no collateral behind them, so the score stays 3.
- Per-model, per-country inventory IS published (H100 x176 South Korea, H200 x1024 East US, B300 x1024 US, B200 x1024 Canada), and Fluence runs a live public auction venue for reserved capacity at auctions.fluence.network, which answers without an account. The auction mechanism exists specifically to surface availability and price discovery for capacity — the announcement notes buyers 'know demand is high, they know supply is tight, but they often have no real view into market pricing'. Note the auction requires 'a short review' before bidding, so it is gated, which caps the score below Akash/Nosana. Read again 15 September 2026: every region reads available equal to total, so no leased share is disclosed, and the marketplace FAQ says it is not for on-demand GPUs; scored 2, one above the floor for showing per-model listed availability before sign-up.
Competitive position
Where Fluence 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#4 / 78.2 of 30 · best 15.8
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 Fluence leads
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour#3 / 7
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job#2 / 7
Where it trails
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability#5 / 7
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.
io.net#3 of 7 · score 62 · 3.0 points ahead
Fluence leads on
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job3 vs 2
io.net leads on
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply4 vs 3
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability4 vs 2
Largest single reason io.net is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: io.net has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Aethir#5 of 7 · score 55 · 4.0 points behind
Fluence leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour5 vs 4
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply3 vs 2
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability2 vs 1
Aethir leads on
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job4 vs 3
Largest single reason Fluence is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Aethir has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Golem Network#6 of 7 · score 53 · 6.0 points behind
Fluence leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour5 vs 1
Golem Network leads on
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability3 vs 2
Largest single reason Fluence is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Golem Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 59 · gap 20.0Why Akash Network ranks above Fluence
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 20.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisAkash NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.215.8−19.8, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisAkash NetworkPoints
Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour · w3057−1.92, worse
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply · w3037−3.84, worse
Published Utilisation and Live Availability · w2029−4.48, worse
Net5979−20.0
Your scenario
Fluence 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 #4 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 5 · 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 3 · 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 2 · 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 (Fluence 3/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job · 20%
- Information failure (Fluence 3/10): 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
- Homepage, now at fluence.ai (fetched 15 Sep 2026): NVIDIA H200 — 'Fluence $2.80/hr' against 'CoreWeave $6.30/hr', 'AWS Cloud $7.90/hr' and 'Google Cloud $10.84/hr' (the /gpu-cloud page shows the same four figures). CPU (2 vCPU, 2 GB RAM, 25 GB Storage) — 'Fluence $5.03/month' against 'Hetzner $14.00/month', 'DigitalOcean $31.50/month', 'AWS Cloud $53.50/month'. Headline: 'Slash your AI cloud bill by up to 85%'. Docs: 'GPU Cloud uses hourly pre-paid billing in USD'; three hours of rent reserved at deploy, unused reserved balance returned on termination. Rates for other on-demand GPU models sit behind the signed-in console and API. The separate reserved-capacity marketplace (auctions.fluence.network) shows entry rates of B300 $3.92, B200 $3.71 and H100 $2.30 per GPU-hr.Fluence — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDFluence — official pricing page ↗ · 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
- Terms of Use (Fluence DAO, a Swiss association) bar Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and the Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine; 'certain Services' are also unavailable in 19 named US jurisdictions (Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah). All payments in U.S. dollars.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Fluence: 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 59, #4 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:fluence_dcompute:2026.10.18:9c837a03b7fd
Are you Fluence? 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.