Head to head · Compute gpu · October 2026 research run
CoreWeave vs Modal
Modal scores 63.6 (B) on agent readiness against CoreWeave's 61.5 (C), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. CoreWeave leads on schema & documentation, security & auth and transparency & trust. Both do compute gpu.
Which one, for what
Good for Teams that already run Kubernetes and need whole multi-GPU nodes or clusters for training and dedicated inference, with a contract and IAM.
Ahead on
- Schema & documentation, 79 against 70
- Security & auth, 74 against 68
- Transparency & trust, 77 against 67
Also in its favour
- A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install
Watch for
No self-serve route. CoreWeave's sales team approves an organisation and emails the activation link before a token can be created
Modal B
Good for Python teams that want GPU functions, batch jobs and HTTP endpoints from one decorator with scale to zero.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 70 against 50
- Payments & pricing, 30 against 20
- Maintenance & community, 85 against 80
Also in its favour
- Free to start without a card
Watch for
No REST API or OpenAPI spec for deploying or invoking Functions
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | CoreWeave | Modal | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 50 | 70 | Modal +20 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 79 | 70 | CoreWeave +9 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 58 | 57 | CoreWeave +1 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 74 | 68 | CoreWeave +6 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 20 | 30 | Modal +10 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 80 | 85 | Modal +5 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 77 | 67 | CoreWeave +10 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 61.5 · C | 63.6 · B |
Facts side by side
| Fact | CoreWeave | Modal |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | Model platform |
| Vendor | CoreWeave, Inc. | Modal |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.coreweave.com | no (local only) |
| Transports | HTTP | |
| Auth | Token | API key |
| Pricing | Pay per use | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Proprietary service under CoreWeave's Terms of Service. The Terraform provider on GitHub is MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Tools exposed | 38 | none |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-02 | 2026-09-28 |
| Terms last updated | 2022-06-30 | 2026-05-01 |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-02-24 | 2023-05-17 |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Popularity | none | 514 stars, 941k npm/wk, 10.1M PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | none | 4/5 (2) |
Verdicts
CoreWeave
Per-hour prices for 8-GPU H100, H200 and B200 nodes are public, the docs ship as Markdown with llms.txt and embedded OpenAPI specs, and IAM has read-only roles per service. An organisation must be approved by CoreWeave's sales team before any token exists, and no request rate limits were found in the reviewed documentation.
Modal
Scale to zero by default, per-second billing and about one-second container boots. No REST API or OpenAPI spec for deploying or invoking Functions.
Before you call either
CoreWeave
- Create an API access token at console.coreweave.com/tokens with an expiry and send it as
Authorization: Bearerto https://api.coreweave.com - Add GPUs by applying a NodePool resource (
compute.coreweave.com/v1alpha1) to a CKS cluster withinstanceTypeandtargetNodes.instanceTypecan't be changed afterwards - Set
targetNodesto 0 or delete the Node Pool when a job ends. Nodes are whole 8-GPU machines billed by the hour - Never pass
dry_runto the MCP toolcoreweave_kubectl_applyexpecting a preview. The reference says the parameter is ignored and the manifest is applied - Use a separate Forge API key and https://api.inference.wandb.ai/v1 for Serverless Inference. A CoreWeave API access token doesn't work there
Modal
- Create a proxy token and require it on every web endpoint before sharing the URL; endpoints are public by default
- Pass a list to
gpu=(for example["H100", "A100-80GB"]) so a job still runs when the first choice is unavailable - Set
scaledown_windowandmin_containersexplicitly; the defaults are 60 seconds and 0 - Use
.spawn()and poll the call ID for long work instead of holding a web request open - Keep web endpoint traffic under 200 requests a second or ask Modal to raise the limit
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, CoreWeave or Modal?
Modal scores 63.6 (B) on agent readiness against CoreWeave's 61.5 (C), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. CoreWeave leads on schema & documentation, security & auth and transparency & trust.
Can an agent call CoreWeave and Modal without installing anything?
CoreWeave has a hosted endpoint at https://api.coreweave.com. No hosted endpoint is listed for Modal.
Other comparisons with CoreWeave or Modal
- Baseten vs CoreWeave
- Baseten vs Modal
- Beam vs CoreWeave
- Beam vs Modal
- Cerebrium vs CoreWeave
- Cerebrium vs Modal
- CoreWeave vs Koyeb
- CoreWeave vs Lambda Cloud
- CoreWeave vs Northflank
- CoreWeave vs Replicate Deployments
- CoreWeave vs Runpod
- CoreWeave vs Vast.ai
- Koyeb vs Modal
- Lambda Cloud vs Modal
- Modal vs Northflank
- Modal vs Replicate Deployments
- Modal vs Runpod
- Modal vs Vast.ai
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/coreweave-vs-modal.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/coreweave.json·/api/v1/tools/modal.json - From a terminal
anchor compare coreweave modal(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "coreweave", "b": "modal"}at/mcp, no key