Vultr vs Equinix Colocation
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Vultr and Equinix Colocation.
Quick Verdict
4.0/5
Vultr
0 reviews
4.0/5
Equinix Colocation
0 reviews
Both Vultr and Equinix Colocation are equally rated at 4.0/5. Vultr is a cloud platform offering VPS, bare metal servers, and Kubernetes hosting across 32 data centers worldwide. Built for developers and businesses needing scalable, reliable compute resources with transparent billing. Equinix is the world's largest colocation provider with 270+ International Business Exchange (IBX) data centers globally (investor materials cite ~280 across 77 metros in 36 countries). Direct cloud on-ramps to AWS, Azure, GCP, and private network peering.
Vultr High-performance cloud infrastructure with global data centers and competitive pricing | Equinix Colocation World's largest colocation network — 270+ data centers | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 4.0 (0 reviews) | 4.0 (0 reviews) |
| Pricing model | paid | paid |
| Starting price | From $2.5/mo | Free tier available |
| Best for | Teams needing low-latency compute across multiple continents, API-first fleets, and self-serve GPU or bare metal with predictable billing | Enterprises whose infrastructure strategy depends on interconnection — financial services, networks, content platforms and multi-cloud architectures needing private on-ramps and a consistent global footprint of cabinets and cross-connects. |
| Specifications (entry plan) | ||
| CPU cores | 1 vCPU | — |
| RAM | 1 GB | — |
| Storage | 10 GB | — |
| Bandwidth | 1 TB/mo | — |
| SLA uptime | 100% | — |
| Data-center count | 34 | 270✓ |
| €/vCPU/mo | €2.50 | — |
| €/GB RAM/mo | €2.50 | — |
| Performance | ||
| CPU score (sysbench) | 4,100 | — |
| Disk read (fio) | 1,800 MB/s | — |
| Disk IOPS (4K random) | 38,000 | — |
| Network out | 1 Gbps | — |
| Latency (TTFB) | 24 ms | — |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ✓ | |
| DDoS protection | ✓ | |
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ✓ | |
| Free tier | ||
| Data-center locations | ||
| Regions | 34 regions across North/South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa (see locations page) | — |
| Tags | ||
| Tags | hourly billingnvme storageipv6ddos protectionbackups includedsnapshotsbare metalgpu availables3 compatibleeu datacenterus datacenterapac datacenterterraform providerapi accesswindows available | eu datacenterus datacenterapac datacenterprivate networking |
| Visit Vultr → | Visit Equinix Colocation → | |
Vultr
Pros
- + Truly global: 34 regions on six continents from one console, one API, one price list - with per-region test IPs published
- + Fully published hourly and monthly pricing from $2.50/mo, mature REST API and Terraform provider
- + 100% network and host-node uptime SLA with credits; standardized platform behavior across every region
- + Broad self-serve catalog: NVMe optimized VMs, NVIDIA/AMD GPUs, bare metal, managed databases/Kafka, S3-compatible object storage, VKE
Cons
- - Price-performance trails European leaders: our measured HF 2GB (Amsterdam) had the slowest NVMe storage of six tested providers at a mid-range price
- - Backups cost 20% of instance price, snapshots bill per GB, Windows and extra egress are add-ons
- - No refunds in the terms of service; support is ticket-only for self-serve customers
- - Overlapping instance families (Cloud Compute, VX1, Optimized) make it easy to pick a stale SKU; region count differs across Vultr's own pages (32/33/34)
Equinix Colocation
Pros
- + Unmatched interconnection density: 507,000+ interconnections, 2,000+ networks, direct cloud on-ramps
- + Published facility engineering: 99.999% stated uptime, N+1 power minimum, 24/7 on-site security
- + Global consistency — 270+ IBX locations across the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific
- + Facility-level detail (seismic ratings, power architecture, certifications) is public, not deck-only
- + Mature operational services: remote hands, cross-connect provisioning, staging and shipping
- + 96% renewable energy across global operations, reported by a listed company (Nasdaq: EQIX)
Cons
- - No public pricing — sales-led, multi-year contracts; premium pricing in every metro
- - No self-service or hourly entry point; unsuitable for small deployments
- - Cross-connects, remote hands and expansion reservations add materially to the headline cost
- - Physical and contractual lock-in once cabling and cross-connects are established
- - Portfolio complexity (Fabric, Network Edge, Metal, xScale) blurs what is included in a colo contract
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.