AWS vs Crusoe
AWS and Crusoe represent contrasting approaches in GPU cloud for ML/AI workloads. AWS, the market leader, offers unparalleled scale, global availability across 30+ regions, and seamless integration with services like SageMaker, EC2 P5 instances (H100 GPUs), and proprietary Trainium/Inferentia chips. It's ideal for enterprises needing managed ML pipelines, compliance (SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 27001), and hybrid workloads. However, its pricing complexity, high on-demand rates, and egress fees can inflate costs. Crusoe differentiates through sustainability, leveraging stranded energy for low-carbon computing, targeting ESG-focused organizations. It provides NVIDIA H100/A100 clusters optimized for batch training, with a vertically integrated energy-to-cloud model reducing operational costs. Geographic footprint is limited (primarily US), lacking AWS's redundancy. Both offer spot instances, but AWS bills per-second while Crusoe uses per-hour. AWS suits complex, production-grade deployments; Crusoe excels in cost-effective, high-intensity training where environmental impact matters. Value hinges on scale needs: AWS for ecosystem lock-in and reliability, Crusoe for green credentials and potential savings on long runs. ML engineers should weigh integration depth against sustainability and regional constraints.
Our Recommendation
Choose AWS for large enterprises (>50 engineers) with global teams, requiring SageMaker for end-to-end ML ops, low-latency inference across regions, or compliance like HIPAA. It's best for budgets tolerating premium pricing ($30-50/hr for H100) in exchange for 99.99% SLAs and Trainium cost savings (up to 50% vs GPUs). Opt for Crusoe if your team (10-50) prioritizes ESG compliance, batch workloads, and US-based ops, especially with budgets under $20/hr for H100 equivalents via efficient energy use. Ideal for startups or research with intermittent large training, leveraging spot instances for 70-90% discounts. Avoid Crusoe for latency-sensitive apps due to limited regions; skip AWS if simplicity and green metrics outweigh ecosystem needs.
Live Pricing
Compare real-time GPU offers from AWS and Crusoe
| Provider | GPU Model | VRAM | Host Specs | Region | Price | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Crusoe | NVIDIA A40 48GB VRAM | 48GB | 0 vCPU 0GB RAM | United States | $0.40/GPU/hr | |||
![]() Crusoe | NVIDIA L40S 48GB VRAM | 48GB | 0 vCPU 0GB RAM | United States | $0.50/GPU/hr | |||
![]() AWS | NVIDIA Tesla T4 16GB VRAM | 16GB | 4 vCPU 16GB RAM | Virginia | $0.53/GPU/hr | |||
![]() AWS | NVIDIA Tesla T4 16GB VRAM | 16GB | 8 vCPU 32GB RAM | Virginia | $0.75/GPU/hr | |||
![]() Crusoe | NVIDIA A40 48GB VRAM | 48GB | 0 vCPU 0GB RAM | United States | $0.90/GPU/hr |





The dominant force in global cloud computing with deep integration of GPUs into its ecosystem for machine learning and other services.
Best For
Unique Features
- Proprietary silicon like Trainium and Inferentia chips
- Fully managed ML development environment with SageMaker
Limitations
- High cost relative to specialized clouds
- Complexity of pricing including egress fees
A climate-aligned computing provider powering high-performance computing using stranded energy sources to mitigate environmental impact.
Best For
Unique Features
- Vertically integrated energy-to-cloud model
- Use of stranded energy sources
Limitations
- Smaller geographic footprint compared to hyperscalers
Feature Comparison
| Feature | AWS | Crusoe |
|---|---|---|
| SSH | ||
| Jupyter Notebooks | ||
| Web Terminal | ||
| API | ||
| Kubernetes | ||
| Containers |
| Feature | AWS | Crusoe |
|---|---|---|
| Billing Increment | per-second | per-hour |
| Spot Instances | ||
| Reserved Instances | ||
| Prepaid Credits |
| Certification | AWS | Crusoe |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| GDPR | ||
| ISO 27001 |
| Feature | AWS | Crusoe |
|---|---|---|
| SLA | ||
| Enterprise Support | ||
| Discord Community |
Pricing Analysis
AWS employs per-second billing for EC2/SageMaker, enabling fine-grained cost control for variable workloads, with spot instances offering 70-90% savings (e.g., P5.48xlarge H100 at ~$32/hr on-demand, <$10 spot). Reserved instances (1-3 years) yield 40-75% discounts, but complex tiers (partial/full upfront) and egress fees ($0.09/GB) add overhead. Crusoe uses per-hour billing, simpler for predictable runs, with spot/preemptible instances at steep discounts (H100 clusters ~$15-25/hr estimated). No reserved options publicly detailed, focusing on on-demand/spot for flexibility. Implications: AWS favors short bursts/experiments (per-sec savings); Crusoe suits steady long jobs (hourly predictability, lower base via energy efficiency). Both lack long-term commitments matching on-prem, but AWS's elasticity suits autoscaling.
For small experiments/fine-tuning, AWS provides superior value via per-second billing and SageMaker Studio (pay-per-use notebooks), minimizing idle costs vs Crusoe's hourly minimums. Large training runs favor Crusoe: stranded energy lowers effective GPU-hour rates (potentially 20-40% below AWS spot), ideal for 1000+ GPU days where ESG reporting adds ROI. Production inference leans AWS—Trainium/Inferentia cut costs 40-50% for LLMs, with global edge deployment vs Crusoe's batch focus. Hybrid: AWS for dev/test, Crusoe for scale-out training. Overall, Crusoe wins on raw TCO for green batch (if US-centric); AWS for integrated, reliable inference at scale, despite premiums.
Use Case Comparison
AWS
AWS excels with P5 instances (8x H100 per node, EFA networking for 400Gbps multi-node scaling) and SageMaker for distributed training (up to 1000s GPUs). Trainium2 supports massive pretraining at lower cost/power. Global AZs ensure redundancy; spot fleets handle interruptions via checkpoints. Ideal for production-scale LLMs needing fault-tolerance.
Crusoe
Crusoe's H100 clusters (liquid-cooled, high-density) optimize for large-scale training via stranded energy efficiency, potentially lower $/FLOP. Supports Slurm/Kubernetes for job scheduling. Strong for batch but limited regions risk latency; spot availability good for cost but less mature checkpointing vs AWS.
AWS
AWS SageMaker Batch Transform and Inferentia/Trainium enable cost-optimized serving (up to 4x throughput vs GPUs). Asynchronous processing scales to petabytes; integrates with S3 for data. Spot instances viable for non-urgent jobs, but egress adds cost.
Crusoe
Crusoe suits high-volume batch with GPU clusters and efficient power usage, lowering costs for offline scoring. Kubernetes orchestration simplifies pipelines. ESG benefits for reporting; hourly billing aligns with job durations, but lacks managed inference services.
AWS
AWS dominates with SageMaker Endpoints, Lambda@Edge, and global Outposts for <100ms latency. Inferentia2 boosts throughput 30%; auto-scaling handles bursts. Multi-AZ HA and API Gateway integration perfect for prod apps.
Crusoe
Crusoe less optimal—focuses on compute over low-latency serving. H100s capable but limited regions/geos increase cold-start risks. No equivalent managed endpoints; requires custom FastAPI/K8s, suiting non-latency-critical apps.
AWS
SageMaker Studio/Jupyter offers per-second GPUs (G5/A10G), hyperparameter tuning, and spot for cheap iterations. Integrates Git/ECR; debugging tools accelerate prototyping for small teams.
Crusoe
Crusoe viable for GPU access via notebooks/clusters, spot for affordability. Simpler setup but lacks SageMaker's ML-specific tools/UI. Good for quick tests if sustainability prioritized, though hourly billing penalizes short runs.
Technical Comparison
AWS virtualizes via EC2 (Nitro hypervisor), offering GPU instances (P4d/P5 with H100/A100), EBS/GP3 storage, FSx Lustre for HPC, EFA/RDMA networking, and EKS for Kubernetes. Multi-AZ/region HA standard. Crusoe emphasizes dedicated clusters (bare-metal-like H100 pods), Kubernetes-native with Slurm support, object/block storage, but US-focused (Denver, San Antonio DCs). Less virtualization overhead potentially, but narrower storage/network options vs AWS's breadth.
Both leverage NVIDIA H100/A100; AWS P5 delivers 3.3Tb/s NVLink per node, scales to DGX SuperPOD equivalents with EFA (up to 10k GPUs). Trainium offers custom ML perf. Crusoe matches raw GPU FLOPS with dense racking, claims competitive multi-node scaling via InfiniBand, but limited public benchmarks. AWS edges availability/reliability; Crusoe potentially better power efficiency (stranded energy), suiting sustained training. No major perf gaps reported, but AWS proven at exascale.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which provider offers better spot instance pricing?▾
What is the minimum billing increment for each provider?▾
Which provider has better compliance certifications for enterprise use?▾
Which provider offers better development tools like Jupyter notebooks?▾
Which provider has better Kubernetes support for orchestration?▾
What is each provider best suited for?▾
Which provider offers reserved instances for long-term savings?▾
Which provider offers better enterprise support?▾
Which provider has better API and automation support?▾
Which provider has better container and Docker support?▾
What unique features differentiate these providers?▾
How do I get started with each provider?▾
Related Comparisons & Pages
NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40GB on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80GB on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA H100 SXM5 on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA RTX A6000 on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA Tesla T4 on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA Tesla V100 16GB on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA Tesla V100 32GB on AWS - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40GB on Crusoe - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80GB on Crusoe - Pricing & Availability
NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80GB on Crusoe - Pricing & Availability
Atlantic.net vs Crusoe: GPU Cloud Comparison
AWS vs Cirrascale: GPU Cloud Comparison
AWS vs CoreWeave: GPU Cloud Comparison
AWS vs Denvr: GPU Cloud Comparison
AWS vs FluidStack: GPU Cloud Comparison