Civo vs Fluidstack: Complete Comparison (2026)
An in-depth comparison of Civo and Fluidstack to help you choose the right tool for your business.
Last updated: November 2026
Civo
6.7/10
Civo is a UK cloud provider offering fast managed Kubernetes on K3s, compute instances, managed databases, object storage and GPUs for developer teams.
Fluidstack
5.9/10
Fluidstack builds and runs large GPU clusters and custom AI data centers for frontier AI labs and enterprises that train and serve large models.
Feature-by-Feature Comparison
| Feature | | |
|---|---|---|
| Scores | ||
| Overall Rating | 6.7/10 | 5.9/10 |
| Analytics | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Cost | 9/10 | 6/10 |
| Customization | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Ease of Use | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Integration | 6/10 | 4/10 |
| Scalability | 6/10 | 10/10 |
| Security | 7/10 | 5/10 |
| Support | 5/10 | 7/10 |
| Pricing | ||
| Free plan | No | No |
| Cheapest paid plan | $5/mo Compute instances | Contact for pricing |
| Estimated cost for 10 users | $5/mo Compute instances | Contact for pricing |
| Features | ||
| API and CLI | Not listed | |
| Managed Databases | Not listed | |
| Multiple Regions | ||
| Object Storage | Not listed | |
| Managed Kubernetes | ||
| Cloud Compute | Not listed | |
| Managed WordPress | Not listed | |
| Dedicated Servers | Not listed | |
| Shared Hosting | Not listed | |
Civo vs Fluidstack cost by team size
| Team size | Civo | Fluidstack |
|---|---|---|
| 1 user | $5/moCompute instances | Contact for pricing |
| 5 users | $5/moCompute instances | Contact for pricing |
| 10 users | $5/moCompute instances | Contact for pricing |
| 25 users | $5/moCompute instances | Contact for pricing |
| 50 users | $5/moCompute instances | Contact for pricing |
The plan that fits each team size, billed monthly, before add-ons and usage charges. Each cost opens that tool's pricing calculator for the team size.
Which One Should You Choose?
Why choose Civo
- Higher Ease of Use score (8/10 vs 4/10)
- Higher Cost score (9/10 vs 6/10)
- Better fit for developers (9/10 vs 4/10)
- Better fit for startups (9/10 vs 5/10)
Why choose Fluidstack
- Higher Scalability score (10/10 vs 6/10)
- Higher Customization score (8/10 vs 6/10)
- Better fit for enterprise (9/10 vs 5/10)
Pros & Cons
Civo
Pros
- The Kubernetes control plane is free, and clusters launch in about 90 seconds.
- Ingress and egress bandwidth are free and unlimited, which avoids surprise transfer bills.
- Pricing is published and billed hourly, with nodes starting at $5.43 a month.
- Resources can be managed through a CLI, a REST API, Terraform and Pulumi, plus a marketplace of over 100 apps.
- It holds ISO 27001, SOC 2 and Cyber Essentials Plus, and it is a UK G-Cloud supplier.
Cons
- It offers far fewer managed services and regions than the hyperscalers.
- Reviewers describe the documentation as limited or uneven.
- Very few independent reviews exist; G2 has none and Gartner has one.
- No core-platform SLA or 24/7 support matrix is clearly published.
- Observability tooling is basic.
Fluidstack
Pros
- Can build and deliver capacity at gigawatt scale, which is why Anthropic chose it for its Texas and New York data centers.
- Runs managed Slurm and Kubernetes on bare metal, so training teams do not have to operate the cluster themselves.
- SemiAnalysis gave its GPU clusters a ClusterMAX Gold rating.
- Heavily funded, including an $830M Series A in January 2026, which lowers the risk that the supplier fails.
Cons
- There is no public rate card or self-serve signup, so pricing requires a sales quote.
- Public documentation on APIs, storage and compliance certifications is scarce.
- Third-party sources say its GPU catalog is narrower than marketplace providers and that on-demand billing is per hour.
- It offers no general web hosting, managed databases or app platform services.
Not sold on either?
Frequently Asked Questions
Civo scores higher on our AI Software criteria: 6.7/10 against 5.9/10 for Fluidstack. The largest gap is in Ease of Use: 8/10 for Civo and 4/10 for Fluidstack.
No, neither Civo nor Fluidstack lists a free plan.
Civo is the better fit for developers: we rate it 9/10 for them, against 4/10 for Fluidstack.
