Resources Comparison tables

The honest matrix.

Spec and approach comparisons for procurement evaluators. No pricing — capital intensity is shown in bands; pricing is gated to a verified work-email exchange. Where we don't have an advantage, we say so.

Q2 2026 snapshot. Trade-policy figures move; we update this page when they do.

Table 1 of 3

Modular DC vs. stick-built vs. wholesale colo.

Three structurally different ways to land 2–5 MW of AI-grade compute. The right answer depends on what's gating your project. The honest take: wholesale colo wins on price-per-MW at scale and on operational simplicity; stick-built wins on customization and one-site density ceiling; modular wins on time-to-power, on site-flexibility, and on lead-time risk. We sell modular — read the table accordingly.

Dimension	Modular DC	Stick-built	Wholesale colo
Time-to-power (months from PO)	6–10	24–36	12–24 (lease-up dependent)
Capital intensity (band)	Low–medium	High	Low (operating-lease model)
Customization	Configurable; menu of pre-engineered options	Fully bespoke	Limited — operator defines hall
Density ceiling (kW/rack)	40 air; 120+ DLC	No structural ceiling	20–60 typical; higher by negotiation
Site flexibility	High — site-able where utility & pad exist	Constrained — single greenfield	Operator-defined campus only
Lead-time risk profile	Concentrated (factory + freight + final-mile)	Distributed across 30+ trades	Scheduling risk is the operator's
Best for	Bridge gating-constraint compute; remote-energy; mid-deployment expansion	Single-site, multi-decade, full-customization	Steady-state hyperscale-overflow at scale

Time-to-power figures reflect typical industry windows; site civils, interconnect, and permitting can extend any of the three. Pricing intentionally omitted — wholesale colo's price-per-MW advantage at scale is real and material; modular wins when calendar pressure outweighs it.

Table 2 of 3

Air-cooled vs. direct-liquid-cooled.

The cooling-architecture decision is forced by GPU SKU and ambient envelope, not by preference. Below ~40 kW/rack, air-cooled rear-door designs work and are simpler to operate. Above 40 kW/rack — and certainly above 80 kW/rack — direct-liquid-cooling is the only path. Plumbing and CDU sizing become the procurement question.

Dimension	Air-cooled	Direct-liquid-cooled (DLC)
kW/rack envelope	Up to ~20 kW/rack (rear-door cooling extends to ~40)	40–120+ kW/rack typical; reference designs above 130 kW/rack for current-gen GPU SKUs
Heat-rejection medium	Facility air → CRAC/CRAH or in-row cooler → outdoor condensers / dry coolers	Technical fluid → cold-plate at GPU/CPU → CDU heat-exchanger → facility water → dry cooler / chiller
Heat-rejection equipment	CRAC (self-contained) or CRAH (chilled-water) plus condenser/cooling-tower plant	CDU (one per row or per 1–4 racks) plus dry cooler or adiabatic heat-rejection unit
Ambient envelope	ASHRAE A1–A4 (15–45°C) depending on equipment class	ASHRAE W1–W4 supply-water (2–45°C); W4 unlocks chillerless operation in hot climates
Plumbing & fluid	No technical-fluid plumbing in IT space	Cold-plate manifolds, manifold-block leak detection, cooling-distribution loop, fluid chemistry/inhibitor management
Retrofit complexity	Low — fits standard data-hall floor plate	High in legacy halls; modular DLC modules are the cleanest retrofit path
Best for	CPU-heavy workloads; <40 kW/rack legacy GPU; edge sites with no water service	AI training and inference at GPU SuperPOD class; sites with hot-climate ambient that would otherwise mandate chillers

PUE figures depend on ambient, load factor, and water/air mode of heat rejection — comparison fair only when those are stated. See the glossary entries on PUE, ASHRAE, CDU, and DLC for definitions.

Table 3 of 3

IEC 61439 vs. UL 891 (low-voltage switchgear).

The two standards attest to the same safety functions through different test regimes. Buyers in the US almost always need UL 891 listing for the authority-having-jurisdiction sign-off, regardless of whether the assembly was built and originally tested to IEC 61439 abroad. The dual-cert pathway through an NRTL is well-trodden but adds time to the schedule.

Dimension	IEC 61439-1/-2	UL 891
Geographic applicability	International (Europe and broader IEC member states)	United States and Canada (paired with CSA equivalents)
Voltage range	Up to 1000 V AC / 1500 V DC	Up to 1000 V AC / 1500 V DC
Verification method	Design verification (formerly Type Test) on a representative TTA	UL listing process — sample tested by UL or an OSHA-recognized NRTL
Branch-breaker standard	IEC 60947-2 circuit breakers	UL 489 molded-case circuit breakers (component-level)
Required by US AHJ	Generally not accepted on its own for a US installation	Yes — the AHJ expects to see a UL 891 listing mark
Dual-cert pathway	IEC-tested assembly re-evaluated by an NRTL (UL, Intertek/ETL, CSA, TÜV) for US listing	Native pathway; same NRTL ecosystem
Buyer needs which?	European or international project; or first-stage manufacturing record	Any US installation under NEC jurisdiction; federal facilities
Our position	IEC 61439 TTA is the standard our European-origin assemblies are built to. Q2 2026 status.	Dual-cert path supported via NRTL listing; lead-time impact is the explicit conversation we have with every US buyer.

For medium-voltage equipment the analogous comparison is IEC 62271 vs. IEEE C37 — same dual-cert logic, different standards series.

Want this rendered against your specific spec?

Send the RFI, the deployment date, and the federal-funding posture. We respond with the comparison framed against your actual constraints, in one business day.

Get a lead-time quote → Talk to engineering → Open the glossary →