neocloud · kubernetes · Layer 2.5
Civo
Kubernetes-native teams who found the hyperscaler console exhausting.
high portability Portable. The workload is standard enough to move to another vendor without a rewrite.
What you are buying
- Business model
- Purpose-built GPU cloud. Owns or leases its own datacentre capacity and sells it directly.
- How you reach it
- You get a cluster. Assumes you already run Kubernetes at scale.
- Accelerators
- A100, L40S, and NVIDIA datacentre parts
- Regions
- UK, US, EU
- Pricing model
- Hourly, published, with a strong simplicity pitch.
- Getting started
- Credit card.
- Capacity
- Modest.
- Ownership
- Private.
Verified 2026-09-09. Fields reading “not published” are exactly that — we do not estimate a figure a vendor withholds.
The counterparty
Small provider; the GPU line is one product among several.
A multi-year GPU commitment is a credit decision wearing a cloud contract. This is the section no benchmark covers and the one that decides what happens to your workload in 2028.
The catch
Small catalogue of parts. If you need the newest silicon this is not where it lives.
The economics
Competitive on the parts it carries, and the pricing is genuinely simple to reason about — rarer than it should be.
No rate is quoted on this page on purpose. Published list prices at this layer move weekly and essentially nobody signing a real contract pays them. Dated, sourced figures live in the GPU cost calculator, where the cheapest and dearest published on-demand price for the identical H100 sit 5.6× apart.
The layers underneath this one
Whatever you rent here is a chip in a building that needs power. In 2026 megawatts, not silicon, are the binding constraint on the whole industry — a frontier rack draws 120–200 kW against a 2026 average near 27 kW, and the US interconnection queue exceeds 2,600 GW.
Layer 2 — Silicon · Layer 1 — Energy · The interconnection queue · Tokens per watt
Compared against
- Vultr vs Civo — Geographic spread against Kubernetes simplicity.Compare with Vultr