Three measurement systems, reconciled against company filings and system-operator data: where they disagree, we present the range and name the cause
Three measurement systems, reconciled against company filings and system-operator data. Where they disagree the range is presented with the definitional cause named, derivations are labelled, and gaps are recorded rather than filled.
This primer is built from a single compiled evidence base, a sourced dossier on the Australian data centre market (September 2026) with 121 logged source references (Section 14).
Every figure carries three things
Confidence label
The four inashanu evidence rules
Conflicting estimates are shown in full. Where credible sources disagree (capacity GW, deal multiples, pipeline totals), both estimates are presented with the basis of each, together with the methodology difference that explains the gap.
Derivations are labelled. Anything we compute (sizing builds, CAGRs, capex-per-MW, scenario paths) is labelled inashanu estimate with method stated.
Gaps are a deliverable. The 15-item data-gap register (Section 13) records what could not be sourced and how each gap constrains the analysis.
Sources are logged. Every publisher, date and locator used is consolidated in the source log (Section 14).
Fourteen sections, from definition to 2030
Accent: the three sections a committee most needs (02, 06, 10).
Methodology
We triangulate three measurement systems: revenue (IBISWorld, IMARC, ResearchAndMarkets), physical capacity (CBRE, JLL, M3/Colliers DC Byte, Knight Frank) and demand-side occupancy (M3), and reconcile them against company filings (NEXTDC, Infratil/CDC, Goodman, DigiCo) and system-operator data (AEMO/Oxford Economics). Where the systems disagree we present the range and name the definitional cause.
Physical capacity
Demand-side occupancy
Company filings
System-operator data
Present the range and name the definitional cause.
Conventions
Conventions. Source: inashanu methodology. As at 21 Sep 2026.
- A$
- Australian dollars; US$ marked where used. Conversions use the source-implied rate and are labelled.
- MW
- Megawatts of IT load unless stated. Nameplate MVA vs deliverable IT MW is a known trap, flagged wherever it occurs.
- FY
- Year to 30 June.
Confidence labels used throughout
Reading time
The executive summary (pages 4-6) stands alone. Sections 02, 06 and 10 carry the argument a committee most needs: what the market is, what constrains it, and what it becomes by 2030.
Sources
- inashanu methodology
Related
- Why do Australian data centre market size estimates differ so much?
- What data is missing on the Australian data centre market?
- What sources support this Australian data centre research?
The full primer is published as an 85-page PDF (download) with the underlying market model as a workbook (download).
This page is one of 30 in Australian data centres: the research, indexed by the question each one answers, with the four pages where the published sources disagree set first.
The research is published by inashanu, a studio that produces fixed-scope market research for Australian private equity, priced and dated before work starts. The sample engagement is this primer in full.
This standard, on your question. Six fixed-price deliverables, A$14,000 to A$45,000 excluding GST, opening at the A$14,000 market map in 10 business days. State the decision and the date it has to be made; the written assessment of whether the evidence base will carry it follows within two business days and carries no charge. Request a brief assessment · the catalogue and its prices.