Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Compute
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- rendernetwork.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 50 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Render Network
GPU rendering network
Decentralised Compute
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 decentralised compute in the published ranking
50
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Render Network right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour2/10 here; Fluence scores 5
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply2/10 here; Fluence scores 3
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability1/10 here; Golem Network scores 3
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 Render Network cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Render Network?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Render Network
Compare all 4- 4Fluence9 points above · stronger on dc price transparency (5 against 2)59
- 5Aethir5 points above · stronger on dc price transparency (4 against 2)55
- 6Golem Network3 points above · stronger on dc utilisation disclosure (3 against 1)53
For your setup
Find out if Render 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 Render 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 this rank
Why Render Network ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (6.4 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
302+1.925.08#6/7Loading evidence…
302+1.923.07#6/7Loading evidence…
201+0.643.09#6/7Loading 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 Golem Network, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 49–52 and stays #7
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 Render 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 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Golem Network+254#7 → #6
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Golem Network+254#7 → #6
Published Utilisation and Live Availability 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes Golem Network+354#7 → #6
Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Golem Network+354#7 → #6
Smallest climb: fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour 2 → 4 passes Golem Network, #6.
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 — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply — 2/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- A buyer cannot compute a dollar cost per GPU-hour before committing: cost resolves through the OctaneBench score of the node drawn and the RENDER token or credit value. The pricing page reads 'Last updated 2 years ago' and still lists Tier 1 as '[NOT YET RELEASED]', and the knowledge base's Select Render Tier page prices Tier 2 at 400 OB-hours per Render Credit against the pricing page's 100.
Competitive position
Where Render 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#7 / 74.8 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 Render Network leads
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job#2 / 7
Where it trails
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour#6 / 7
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply#6 / 7
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability#6 / 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.
Golem Network#6 of 7 · score 53 · 3.0 points ahead
Render Network leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour2 vs 1
Golem Network leads on
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply3 vs 2
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability3 vs 1
Largest single reason Golem Network is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Golem Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Aethir#5 of 7 · score 55 · 5.0 points ahead
Render Network leads onNo scored criterion
Aethir leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour4 vs 2
- Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job4 vs 3
Largest single reason Aethir is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Aethir has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fluence#4 of 7 · score 59 · 9.0 points ahead
Render Network leads onNo scored criterion
Fluence leads on
- Fetchable Price Per GPU-Hour5 vs 2
- Verified vs Self-Reported Supply3 vs 2
- Published Utilisation and Live Availability2 vs 1
Largest single reason Fluence is ahead: published criteria (+8.8 display points).Scenario cost: Fluence has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 50 · gap 29.0Why Akash Network ranks above Render Network
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 29.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisAkash NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight4.815.8−28.6, 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 · w3027−4.80, worse
Verified vs Self-Reported Supply · w3027−4.80, worse
Published Utilisation and Live Availability · w2019−5.12, worse
Net5079−29.0
Your scenario
Render 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 #7 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 2 · 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 2 · 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 1 · 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 (Render Network 3/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Recourse When a Provider Vanishes Mid-Job · 20%
- Information failure (Render Network 2/10): 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
- Official knowledge base (fetched 15 Sep 2026; page 'Last updated 2 years ago'): '1 RENDER Credit can equal 100 OB for 1 hour at Tier 2, and 200 OB for 1 hour at Tier 3.' Tier 1 (Trusted) '[NOT YET RELEASED]', multiplier '1x'; Tier 2 'a multiplier that varies between 2 - 4X'; Tier 3 'a multiplier of 8-16X vs Tier 1'. No dollar amount on the page; job-cost questions go to support@renderfoundation.com. The KB's Select Render Tier page prices Tier 2 at '100 OBh/1 RNDR Token or 400 OBh/1 Render Credit' and Tier 3 at '200 OBh/1 Render Token or 800 OBh/1 Render Credit', contradicting the pricing page. Homepage states only 'Simple, on-demand pricing with no minimum spends or upfront commitments'.Render Network — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRender Network — 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Render 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 50, #7 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:render_network_dcompute:2026.10.18:9c837a03b7fd
Are you Render 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.