AI and accelerated-compute workloads have rewritten the assumptions colocation buyers used to rely on, particularly around power density, which now regularly exceeds what older facilities were designed to deliver.
The economics of data center capacity have changed faster in the last two years than in the previous decade. Anyone evaluating their options today is working in a genuinely different market.
The factors that actually move the needle
Connectivity richness is frequently underweighted. A carrier-neutral facility with a dense ecosystem of networks and direct cloud on-ramps can save more over a contract term than a modest difference in the rack rate ever will.
Headline pricing is the least reliable basis for comparison. Two facilities quoting similar rates can differ enormously once you account for power redundancy, cross-connect fees, remote-hands rates, and the small print around escalations and renewals.
Why it matters now
Power has overtaken floor space as the binding constraint in most primary markets. Vacancy rates have fallen to record lows, and the practical effect is that capacity — particularly high-density capacity — increasingly needs to be reserved well ahead of when you actually need it.
The market has split in two. Standard enterprise workloads still run comfortably at three to five kilowatts a rack, while accelerated-compute deployments are pushing twenty, fifty, even a hundred kilowatts. Those two worlds are priced and provisioned very differently, and conflating them is a common and expensive mistake.
A practical way to evaluate
Model the whole cost, not the monthly line. Setup fees, cross-connects, bandwidth, growth headroom, and exit terms all belong in the comparison. The cheapest rack rate is rarely the cheapest deployment.
Start with requirements, not providers. Pin down your power per rack, total committed capacity, connectivity needs, and the compliance regimes you answer to. That single page of clarity will shape every conversation that follows.
Where buyers get it wrong
Treating tier level as a proxy for reliability is a common shortcut that backfires. Design tier describes redundancy on paper; actual uptime depends on maintenance discipline, staffing, and how the facility has behaved under real incidents.
The most expensive mistake is optimising for the number everyone sees — the monthly rack rate — while ignoring the numbers nobody asks about until the invoice arrives: cross-connects, remote hands, power overage, and renewal escalators.
A short checklist before you sign
- Request recent incident reports, not just a summary uptime percentage
- Confirm the certifications your industry and customers actually require
- Ask for real uptime history, not just the design tier
- Ask what happens operationally when a single system fails, not just what the tier rating implies
- Total the full cost of ownership, including the fees that hide in the small print
The bottom line
Markets like this reward those who prepare. Do the early thinking well, and the rest of the process tends to take care of itself.