Calculator
What this is worth on your own bill.
You put your figures in. We apply the reductions we have measured, and every output line names the benchmark it came from.
Nothing on this page is a number we know about you. The baseline is yours, the ratios are ours, and the two are kept visibly apart — which is the opposite of how a vendor calculator usually works, where the baseline is assumed for you and the saving falls out of an assumption you never see.
Steps 1 to 3 · Your industry, your numbers, your result
Pick your industry. Change anything that is not yours.
Your industry fills in a typical baseline. Every figure after that is yours to change, and every output line names the measurement it came from.
Put In Your Figures. See What The Measured Ratios Do To Them.
The baseline below is a worked example for enterprise data centre, not a number we know about you — change any field and it becomes yours. The reductions applied to it are measured, and every line names the benchmark it came from.
Typical corporate facility overhead means every watt of compute removed takes roughly half a watt of cooling and distribution with it.
Picking an industry only changes the starting numbers below and the assumed facility overhead. The measured reductions are the same for every industry on this list — they are a property of the engine, not of who is running it.
What you spend a year on the workload you would bring. Not your whole bill.
Servers in your own facility running this workload.
Your average draw per server. Ours is not a substitute for yours.
Your contracted electricity price.
Facility overhead (PUE): total site draw ÷ compute draw. 1.0 shows compute alone. Yours, not ours.
Measured outcomes, not priced here. A shadow run on your own traffic puts a number on each.
Adding the levers instead of composing them on the remainder gives 116.64% — more than the spend itself. We publish the gap rather than the bigger number.
$14.00M / yrrefused — the figure above it is the one we stand behind
- These are estimates from your inputs, not a measurement of your systems.
- The ratios come from our seeded benchmark traffic, reproducible from one command. Your mix is not our mix — the shadow replay runs against your own logs and returns your number, without changing what you serve.
- Compute energy is compute draw only. Cooling, PUE and your AI share of IT load are inputs only you have.
- Cost avoided and capacity gained have different denominators, so they are never combined into a single percentage. They are added once, as money, only to price the share — and both halves stay on screen so the addition can be checked.
- Capacity is a modelled figure: the compute saving is measured in relative compute units against a declared model, not in tokens per second on hardware.
GET /api/wubbery/proof — no key, no input, computed on request.Step 4 · See it for yourself
Watch it happen, live.
The engine measures itself live on its own server, and your device runs the ordinary way beside it. Nothing about you is sent, and it takes about ten seconds.
Don’t take the numbers on trust. Run it.
The engine measures itself on its own server, just now, beside the ordinary way on the same keys, as the store grows a hundredfold. Your device runs the ordinary way too, so you can watch your own machine slow down.
Step 5 · Your real number
See it on your own traffic, free.
Everything above is our measurement applied to your baseline. The shadow run replaces our measurement with yours: it runs beside your system, changes nothing you serve, and you can stop it in a click.
What the figure is, and what it is not
Cost avoided. Not capacity gained, and never both added up.
- 84.54%
- off the compute bill, composedSeed 3, 3,000 requests, computed on the remainder and never summed. This is the ratio the estimator applies to your spend.
- 39.16%
- off the bill with your model held fixedNothing re-routed and nothing swapped — the figure for a reader who does not want their model choice touched at all.
- 54.5%
- compute saved, zero violationsRead the other way, 2.20× the work per unit of modelled compute. One measurement seen two ways — never two wins stacked.
The estimator shows cost avoided. The other half — capacity gained, the same measurement read as throughput — is in the console against your own traffic, because it depends on what you do with the freed compute. The two are added once, as money, and never summed as percentages.
What it costs you
Say you spend $100.00 today.
With the cost modules alone we save you $84.54. Our share is 35% of that saving, $29.59 — so your total is $45.05 instead of $100.00, and $54.95 of the saving stays with you.
If nothing is saved there is nothing to share. That is the whole commercial model, and it is why the shadow run that produces your real number is free and changes nothing you serve.
Across 32 industries
The percentage barely moves.
Which is the useful finding, and the one a per-industry table is usually built to obscure. Open it if you want your own row; the summary is that your industry is not the variable that decides your number.
The same reductions across 32 industries
The same engine, 32 different bills
Every row below uses the identical measured reduction — 84.54% off cost, 54.5% less compute. Nothing here is an industry-specific claim, because there is no such thing: the saving is a property of the engine, not of who is running it. What changes down the table is the size of the bill it is applied to, and how much cooling your building adds on top.
| Industry | Modules | PUE | Cost avoided | Capacity value | Site MWh | Power $ | Combined | You keep | We earn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyperscale / cloud providerData centres & infrastructure | 82 | 1.15 | $33.82M | $47.91M | 76,865 | $6.15M | $81.73M | $61.30M | $20.43M |
| AI platform / inference providerData centres & infrastructure | 64 | 1.25 | $16.91M | $23.96M | 21,484 | $2.15M | $40.86M | $30.65M | $10.22M |
| Enterprise data centreData centres & infrastructure | 78 | 1.50 | $10.14M | $14.37M | 16,113 | $2.26M | $24.52M | $18.39M | $6.13M |
| Pharmaceutical / life sciencesRegulated | 56 | 1.60 | $7.61M | $10.78M | 6,951 | $904k | $18.39M | $13.79M | $4.60M |
| Financial servicesRegulated | 29 | 1.55 | $6.76M | $9.58M | 4,995 | $649k | $16.35M | $12.26M | $4.09M |
| Telecom / ISP / internetData centres & infrastructure | 33 | 1.45 | $5.92M | $8.38M | 5,538 | $609k | $14.30M | $10.73M | $3.58M |
| Colocation / managed hostingData centres & infrastructure | 36 | 1.45 | $5.07M | $7.19M | 4,154 | $665k | $12.26M | $9.19M | $3.06M |
| Automotive / mobilityIndustry & operations | 23 | 1.55 | $4.65M | $6.59M | 4,884 | $586k | $11.24M | $8.43M | $2.81M |
| Insurance / actuarialRegulated | 25 | 1.55 | $3.38M | $4.79M | 2,331 | $303k | $8.17M | $6.13M | $2.04M |
| Aerospace / space & defenceIndustry & operations | 25 | 1.70 | $2.96M | $4.19M | 2,435 | $292k | $7.15M | $5.36M | $1.79M |
| Government / public sectorRegulated | 18 | 1.65 | $2.54M | $3.59M | 1,654 | $248k | $6.13M | $4.60M | $1.53M |
| Retail / e-commerceIndustry & operations | 22 | 1.55 | $2.54M | $3.59M | 2,072 | $290k | $6.13M | $4.60M | $1.53M |
| Research / scientific computingIndustry & operations | 50 | 1.50 | $2.37M | $3.35M | 4,010 | $441k | $5.72M | $4.29M | $1.43M |
| Energy / utilitiesIndustry & operations | 27 | 1.60 | $2.11M | $2.99M | 2,062 | $144k | $5.11M | $3.83M | $1.28M |
| Security / cyber operationsRegulated | 22 | 1.60 | $1.86M | $2.64M | 1,375 | $192k | $4.50M | $3.37M | $1.12M |
| Healthcare / clinicalRegulated | 50 | 1.70 | $1.69M | $2.40M | 812 | $122k | $4.09M | $3.06M | $1.02M |
| Mining / resourcesIndustry & operations | 29 | 1.95 | $1.52M | $2.16M | 1,396 | $279k | $3.68M | $2.76M | $919k |
| Chemical / process industryIndustry & operations | 25 | 1.85 | $1.35M | $1.92M | 1,214 | $121k | $3.27M | $2.45M | $817k |
| Games / real-time 3DSoftware & services | 39 | 1.40 | $1.27M | $1.80M | 1,337 | $187k | $3.06M | $2.30M | $766k |
| Logistics / transportIndustry & operations | 21 | 1.60 | $1.01M | $1.44M | 962 | $125k | $2.45M | $1.84M | $613k |
| Media / creative productionSoftware & services | 27 | 1.50 | $845k | $1.20M | 859 | $137k | $2.04M | $1.53M | $511k |
| Manufacturing / industrialIndustry & operations | 18 | 1.85 | $761k | $1.08M | 530 | $64k | $1.84M | $1.38M | $460k |
| Legal / professional servicesRegulated | 37 | 1.80 | $507k | $719k | 180 | $31k | $1.23M | $919k | $306k |
| Sport / events & venuesSoftware & services | 19 | 1.60 | $507k | $719k | 344 | $52k | $1.23M | $919k | $306k |
| Construction / built environmentIndustry & operations | 16 | 1.95 | $423k | $599k | 261 | $42k | $1.02M | $766k | $255k |
| Real estate / propertySoftware & services | 38 | 1.60 | $380k | $539k | 94 | $14k | $919k | $690k | $230k |
| SaaS / software productSoftware & services | 45 | 1.40 | $338k | $479k | 94 | $14k | $817k | $613k | $204k |
| Agriculture / food productionIndustry & operations | 16 | 1.90 | $338k | $479k | 190 | $25k | $817k | $613k | $204k |
| Education / schools & universitiesSoftware & services | 46 | 1.75 | $254k | $359k | 117 | $18k | $613k | $460k | $153k |
| Hospitality / food serviceIndustry & operations | 19 | 1.85 | $211k | $299k | 53 | $9k | $511k | $383k | $128k |
| Non-profit / NGOSoftware & services | 33 | 1.80 | $76k | $108k | 13 | $2k | $184k | $138k | $46k |
| Small business / startupSoftware & services | 29 | 1.90 | $34k | $48k | 5 | $980 | $82k | $61k | $20k |
| One of each (32) | $290.40M | $217.80M | $72.60M |
Two things worth reading off this table. The spread from the smallest row to the largest is roughly a thousandfold — which is why a single calculator with a single default was never going to speak to everyone. And facility overhead moves opposite to size: manufacturing at 1.85 and legal at 1.80 get proportionally more back per watt removed than a hyperscaler at 1.15, because they are paying more to cool every watt they run.
These baselines are illustrative, and they are not your numbers. They are a plausible shape for each kind of operation, chosen so the calculator opens on something recognisable rather than on a hyperscaler’s fleet. The percentages are measured; the dollars are arithmetic applied to a bill we guessed. Put your own figures into the calculator above and the same measured ratios produce your number instead of ours.
Why our rate falls as the deal widens, shown rather than claimed. Those same 32 customers on 35% of the saving alone would pay us $42.05M. On 25% of saving plus capacity they pay $72.60M — and every one of them is better off, because the second deal only charges for capacity that was actually handed back. A lower percentage of a bigger, real number. If we find nothing, both columns are zero.
84.54% COMPOSED COST REDUCTION · 54.5% COMPOSED COMPUTE SAVING (2.2× CAPACITY) · ENERGY IS ESTIMATED, NOT METERED · VERIFY: GET /v1/public/proof
The full benchmark suite is on the tester, and every figure with its condition is one page.