Head to head · GPU compute · October 2026 research run
Modal vs Together GPU Clusters
Modal scores 62.7 (B) on agent readiness against Together GPU Clusters's 58.1 (C), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Together GPU Clusters leads on schema & documentation. Both do gpu compute.
Best GPU and serverless compute for AI workloads · All 231 gpu compute comparisons
Which one, for what
Modal B
Best for Python teams that want GPU functions, batch jobs and HTTP endpoints from one decorator with scale to zero.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 70 against 38
- Maintenance & community, 85 against 75
- Transparency & trust, 71 against 65
Also in its favour
- Free to start without a card
Watch for
No REST API or OpenAPI spec for deploying or invoking Functions
Best for Training, fine-tuning and batch jobs that need several 8-GPU nodes with InfiniBand, run by a pipeline that creates and deletes clusters.
Ahead on
- Schema & documentation, 92 against 70
Also in its favour
- A hosted endpoint, with nothing to install
Watch for
Provisioning takes 10 minutes to an hour, and a cluster can't be paused or scaled to zero
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Reliability Modal +32
Modal 70
Status page at status.modal.com (Better Stack) with per-component history and RSS (20). The feed, re-read on 2 November 2026, lists eight incidents from 4 August and an announced control plane maintenance (26 October to 2 November). Slow .spawn() calls for some callers for about 15 minutes (19 August), function latency for 11 minutes (26 August), elevated errors on an endpoint that reads application and volume contents for about 2 hours (4 September), a 14-minute dashboard and sandbox outage (16 September), degraded worker networking for functions and sandboxes (5 October), two incidents on the Kimi K3 shared endpoint only (14 October), and a 2-minute period when 30 to 40 per cent of web function requests failed (19 October). Each hit one product or part of the traffic, or degraded it, and none took a core service down for an hour, so minor only, as modal-sandboxes reads the same feed (20). Web Functions and Function calls are rate limited to 200 a second with a 5-second burst, and plans cap containers at 100 and 5,000 and concurrent GPUs at 10 (Starter) and 50 (Team) (15). Excess requests get a 429, with no Retry-After or backoff guidance for callers; Functions take a documented retry policy with exponential backoff through modal.Retries (5). No SLA on the pricing page (0). Functions, web endpoints and Servers are GA (10). 20+20+15+5+0+10 = 70.
Together GPU Clusters 38
Read with the hosted lines. status.together.ai lists the website, the playground and serverless models with no component for GPU clusters, and a vendor page with no component for the product takes 15 in this run, as for Together's Code Sandbox and fine-tuning listings (15). No incident history for clusters can be read (5). No rate limits for the clusters API found (0). Together's docs give 429 and 503 backoff guidance for its APIs, per the inference listing's 1 November check, and the CLI has --non-interactive and --json for scripted retries, but creation has no idempotency key (8). No SLA for clusters found; the published 99% commitment covers provisioned inference throughput only (0). Generally available since 9 September 2025 and out of the CLI's beta paths since 22 October 2026, with preemptible nodes in preview (10). 15+5+0+8+0+10 = 38.
Schema & documentation Together GPU Clusters +22
Modal 70
No HTTP API for deploying, so no OpenAPI; the contract is the typed Python SDK with a generated reference (10 of 25). llms.txt at modal.com/llms.txt (10). Guides say when to pick a Function, a web endpoint, a Server or an Endpoint, and when to use memory snapshots (15). Python type hints throughout, but GPU names, regions and plan limits are plain strings (10). Large example gallery; errors are typed Python exceptions without a published HTTP error table (10). Dated SDK release notes (15). 10+10+15+10+10+15 = 70.
Together GPU Clusters 92
Public OpenAPI 3.1 for /v1/compute/clusters and shared volumes, MIT, embedded in every reference page (25). llms.txt and a Markdown twin of every page (10). The docs say when to choose Kubernetes or Slurm and each capacity type, and the management page carries instructions for agents on reporting live availability and prices (18). Enums for cluster type, billing type, GPU type and status, required fields marked (13). CLI, Python, TypeScript and console steps on each task, with 402 and 403 cases documented, though no error catalogue for the clusters API (11). Versioned SDKs and a dated changelog with cluster entries (15). 25+10+18+13+11+15 = 92.
Maintenance & community Modal +10
Modal 85
Python SDK 1.6.3 on 27 October 2026 per the release notes (30). Six dated Python SDK releases from 4 August (1.5.4 on 12 August, 1.5.5 on 28 August, 1.6.0 on 28 September, 1.6.1 on 3 October, 1.6.2 on 15 October and 1.6.3 on 27 October) (20). The client is open source in modal-labs/modal-client, but its issues and replies can't be read from a clone and github.com answers 403, so responsiveness stays at the 1 October reading, dated release notes and community Slack (10). Python is current, and the JavaScript and Go SDKs (tagged 0.11.1, beta) are in the same repository (15). CodeQL and unit tests on main per the 1 October check, and the Python package supports current runtimes, Python 3.15 since 1.6.2 (10). 30+20+10+15+10 = 85.
Together GPU Clusters 75
Closed service. The newest cluster change is CLI and SDK 3.0 on 22 October 2026, 15 days before this check (30). Dated cluster entries in the 90 days from 8 August include 12, 18, 19, 24, 27 and 28 August, 10 September and 22 October (20). Dated changelog, a support portal and Discord, with responsiveness not tested (8). Python SDK 3.1 and TypeScript SDK 1.0 are current and cover clusters (15). SDK CI and dependencies weren't audited (2). 30+20+8+15+2 = 75.
Transparency & trust Modal +6
Modal 71
Closed service; the Python client is Apache-2.0 (20). Retention is spelled out per product on the security page. Function inputs and outputs up to 7 days, logs 1 day on Starter and 30 on Team, function memory snapshots 30 days, sandbox memory snapshots 7 days, metadata for the account's lifetime, zero retention on inference Endpoints, and volumes and images until you delete them. A DPA sits in the trust centre (25). The 1.1.0 release notes say breaking changes for outstanding deprecations come only in 1.Y.0 releases, and releases give deprecation warnings first (1.6.2 deprecates .update_autoscaler()), with no stated notice period (15). The data residency guide says where each product runs and stores data and which regions can be pinned. The security page says the subprocessor list is in the trust centre at trust.modal.com, which didn't render for us (10). 20+25+15+10 = 70.
Together GPU Clusters 65
Closed service under Together's terms, with Apache-2.0 SDKs, which don't raise the line for a closed API (15). The privacy policy's data table covers GPU clusters, per the 4 November Code Sandbox check, and the billing page states when volumes are deleted after credit runs out, with no retention period for data on deleted clusters (15). The 3.0 breaking change came with a migration guide on the day, and reservations carry dated end-of-term emails, with no notice period for API changes found (8). Regions are listed through the API and US regions appear in examples; subprocessors and data locations for clusters were not established (8). 15+15+8+8 = 46.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Modal | Together GPU Clusters | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 70 | 38 | Modal +32 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 70 | 92 | Together GPU Clusters +22 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 57 | 55 | Modal +2 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 68 | 68 | even |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 20 | 20 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 85 | 75 | Modal +10 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 71 | 65 | Modal +6 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 62.7/100 | C 58.1/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Modal | Together GPU Clusters |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Platform | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Modal | Together AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | https://api.together.ai/v1/compute/clusters |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | API key | API key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Pay per use |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Proprietary service under Together's terms of service. The Python SDK and CLI are Apache-2.0 and the OpenAPI document is MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-27 | 2026-10-22 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-05-01 | no date given |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2023-05-17 | no date given |
| 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 | yes |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Popularity | 514 stars, 941k npm/wk, 10.1M PyPI/wk | none |
| Agent reviews | 4/5 (2) | none |
How the scores have moved
Together GPU Clusters
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Modal
Scale to zero by default, per-second billing and about one-second container boots from a Python decorator, with retention stated per product. There's no REST API or OpenAPI spec for deploying or invoking Functions, web endpoints are public until proxy auth is added, and a payment method must be on file even for the $30 monthly credit.
Together GPU Clusters
Multi-node H100 to B300 clusters on Kubernetes or Slurm, created and deleted headlessly through an OpenAPI-described API, a CLI with JSON output and two SDKs, at published GPU-hour prices. Clusters take 10 minutes to an hour to provision, can't be paused, and have no status component, SLA or idempotent create.
Before you call either
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
Together GPU Clusters
- Use
tg clusters, nottg beta clusters, which stopped working with CLI 3.0 on 22 October 2026 - Pass
--jsonand--non-interactive, polltg clusters retrieveuntil status is Ready, and delete the cluster in a cleanup step - Check for an existing cluster by name before retrying a create, since creation has no idempotency key
- Read live availability from the regions API and prices from the pricing page; the regions response has no prices
- Use a project admin's key when the task needs the kubeconfig, since other roles get none
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Modal or Together GPU Clusters?
Modal scores 62.7 (B) on agent readiness against Together GPU Clusters's 58.1 (C), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Together GPU Clusters leads on schema & documentation.
Can an agent call Modal and Together GPU Clusters without installing anything?
No hosted endpoint is listed for Modal. Together GPU Clusters has a hosted endpoint at https://api.together.ai/v1/compute/clusters.
Other comparisons with Modal or Together GPU Clusters
- Baseten vs Modal
- Baseten vs Together GPU Clusters
- Beam vs Modal
- Beam vs Together GPU Clusters
- Cerebrium vs Modal
- Cerebrium vs Together GPU Clusters
- Cloud Run GPUs vs Together GPU Clusters
- CoreWeave vs Modal
- CoreWeave vs Together GPU Clusters
- Crusoe Cloud vs Modal
- Crusoe Cloud vs Together GPU Clusters
- GPUsMarket vs Modal
- GPUsMarket vs Together GPU Clusters
- Hugging Face Inference Endpoints vs Modal
- Hugging Face Inference Endpoints vs Together GPU Clusters
- Hyperbolic vs Modal
- Hyperbolic vs Together GPU Clusters
- Koyeb vs Modal
- Koyeb vs Together GPU Clusters
- Lambda Cloud vs Modal
- Lambda Cloud vs Together GPU Clusters
- Massed Compute vs Modal
- Massed Compute vs Together GPU Clusters
- Modal vs Nebius AI Cloud
- Modal vs Northflank
- Modal vs Replicate Deployments
- Modal vs Runpod
- Modal vs Thunder Compute
- Modal vs Vast.ai
- Modal vs Verda
- Nebius AI Cloud vs Together GPU Clusters
- Northflank vs Together GPU Clusters
- Replicate Deployments vs Together GPU Clusters
- Runpod vs Together GPU Clusters
- Thunder Compute vs Together GPU Clusters
- Together GPU Clusters vs Vast.ai
- Together GPU Clusters vs Verda
- Cloud Run GPUs vs Modal
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/modal-vs-together-gpu-clusters.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/modal.json·/api/v1/tools/together-gpu-clusters.json - From a terminal
anchor compare modal together-gpu-clusters(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "modal", "b": "together-gpu-clusters"}at/mcp, no key