Healthcare · Education
Divarasib monotherapy demonstrated superior efficacy over first-generation KRAS G12C inhibitors, lowering the risk of disease progression or death by 42% and the overall risk of death by 44%, in the phase III Krascendo 1 study1,2
At the time of primary analysis, divarasib achieved a median overall survival of approximately 18 months, compared to 12 months for sotorasib or adagrasib1,2
No new safety signals were observed with divarasib; the most common treatment-related adverse events were mainly low grade and manageable1,2
Data presented as a late-breaking abstract during a Presidential Symposium at the 2026 ESMO Congress and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine1,2
Basel, 25 October 2026 - Roche (SIX: RO, ROP; OTCQX: RHHBY) announced today pivotal results from the phase III Krascendo 1 study, which demonstrated the superior efficacy of investigational divarasib, a next-generation KRAS G12C inhibitor, compared with current standard of care KRAS G12C inhibitors in people with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).1,2 Participants treated with divarasib monotherapy lived significantly longer, lowering the risk of death by 44% compared with sotorasib or adagrasib (overall survival, OS, HR 0.56, [95% CI: 0.41-0.78], p=0.0005).1,2 Median OS for divarasib is currently approximately 18 months, compared to 12 months for the control arm (see table below).1,2 No new safety findings were observed with divarasib and the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were mainly low grade and manageable.1,2 These data were presented as a late-breaking abstract during a Presidential Symposium at the 2026 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.1,2
“The phase III Krascendo 1 results demonstrate the potential for divarasib to become a new standard of care for people with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated lung cancer,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Roche’s Chief Medical Officer and Head of Global Product Development. "The superior efficacy against the current standard of care demonstrated in this head-to-head trial reinforces divarasib's best-in-class profile. We are working closely with health authorities to bring this new treatment option to the people who need it.”
The G12C mutation is one of the most common KRAS mutations, found in approximately one in eight people with NSCLC.3,4 Accumulating evidence suggests that people with NSCLC who have the KRAS G12C mutation may have poorer outcomes than those who have the unmutated KRAS gene (wild-type disease).5,6 Despite the approval of current, first-generation KRAS G12C-targeted treatments, there remains a significant unmet need for more effective therapy options.
“New life-extending treatments are greatly needed, as most patients with this type of cancer will eventually relapse after initial therapy, and there are limited effective treatments for recurrent disease,” said study lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, Professor of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. “The Krascendo 1 results highlight divarasib’s practice-changing potential, as the first KRAS inhibitor to meaningfully improve overall survival for people with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated lung cancer, compared with current treatment options.”
The Krascendo 1 study is the only global head-to-head study to evaluate a next-generation KRAS G12C inhibitor versus approved first-generation KRAS G12C inhibitors.1,2 The study met primary and key secondary endpoints, and divarasib demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in OS and progression-free survival (PFS) over sotorasib or adagrasib.1,2 In addition to the OS benefit, divarasib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 42% (PFS HR 0.58, [95% CI: 0.44-0.76], p<0.0001).1,2 The OS and PFS benefit was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, and was observed regardless of PD-L1 expression or KEAP1 mutation status.1,2 The objective response rate (ORR) with divarasib was nearly double that of sotorasib or adagrasib.1,2
Key efficacy results from the phase III Krascendo 1 study:1,2
Primary and key secondary endpointsDivarasib arm (n=167)*Control arm (adagrasib, sotorasib) (n=171)*Hazard Ratio / (95% CI)p-value
Median OS (months) 17.712.0HR 0.56 (0.41-0.78)p=0.0005
Median PFS (months) 9.8 5.7 HR 0.58 (0.44-0.76)p<0.0001
12-month PFS rate (%)44% 24%--
Confirmed ORR (%)*58%32%--
Median DOR (months)* 11.96.9--
*Assessed in response-evaluable population (n=328; ten patients [divarasib arm, n=6; control arm, n=4] did not have measurable disease at baseline and were excluded from the response-evaluable set). Duration of Response (DOR) evaluated in those who responded to treatment (divarasib arm, n=94; control arm, n=54).
The safety profile of divarasib monotherapy was consistent with the known class effects of KRAS G12C inhibitors.1,2 The most common TRAEs comprised GI toxicity (most commonly, diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting) and hepatotoxicity.1,2 Fewer participants discontinued treatment due to TRAEs with divarasib (4.8% versus 11.7%) and the rate of serious TRAEs was approximately half that of sotorasib or adagrasib (7.8% versus 15.2% respectively), despite patients remaining on treatment for more than twice as long (11.3 months compared with 5.0 months).1,2
Roche is advancing a comprehensive phase III clinical development programme in NSCLC, investigating divarasib as both a monotherapy and as a chemotherapy-free combination, across different disease settings and lines of therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation to divarasib in 2022, and in 2026, Orphan Drug Designation for KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC.
About Krascendo 11,2
The Krascendo 1 study [NCT06497556] is the only global head-to-head study evaluating a Kirsten rat sarcoma virus (KRAS) G12C inhibitor in direct comparison with first-generation approved KRAS G12C inhibitors. This phase III, randomised, open-label, multicentre study evaluates the efficacy and safety of divarasib monotherapy versus sotorasib or adagrasib in people with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The study includes 338 adults, randomised to receive either divarasib once daily (n=167) or, either sotorasib once daily or adagrasib twice daily (n=171). The primary endpoint is blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoint measures include overall survival, confirmed objective response, duration of response, as well as other efficacy and safety measures.
About divarasib
Divarasib is an investigational, best-in-class, next-generation, oral, KRAS G12C inhibitor, discovered and developed by researchers within Roche and Genentech. It has shown greater potency and selectivity in preclinical studies compared with first-generation KRAS G12C-targeting treatments, sotorasib or adagrasib, with superior efficacy demonstrated in people with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC.1,2,7 Divarasib is designed to selectively bind to the KRAS G12C protein, locking the protein in an inactive (off) state, thereby turning off its tumour-driving signalling.7,8,9
Divarasib’s comprehensive clinical development programme is anchored by three phase III studies:
StudyInterventionPatient population
Krascendo 1
[NCT06497556]Divarasib monotherapy vs sotorasib or adagrasib Previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC (second-line)
Krascendo 2
[NCT06793215]Divarasib plus pembrolizumab
(chemotherapy-free combination) vs chemotherapy plus pembrolizumabPreviously untreated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC (first-line)
Krascendo 3
[NCT07541170]Adjuvant divarasib monotherapy vs immunotherapy or observationResected stage II–IIIB KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC after standard of care chemoimmunotherapy (early-stage)
Divarasib underpins Roche’s diversified pipeline targeting the RAS signalling pathway, including other mutant-selective inhibitors and a pan-RAS inhibitor, designed to extend the benefits of RAS inhibition strategies to more patients.
About KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer
Despite advances in treatment, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, surpassing the combined mortality rates of breast, prostate, and stomach cancers.10,11 Each year, it claims the lives of 1.8 million people, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for approximately 85% of cases.10,12 KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated genes in lung cancer, occurring in approximately 25% of newly diagnosed lung cancers, and is associated with poor prognosis for patients.9 The G12C mutation is one of the most common KRAS mutations, found in approximately 12-14% of NSCLC cases.3,4
The KRAS gene produces the KRAS protein, which acts as a cellular control switch, cycling between an active (on) and inactive (off) state to regulate cell growth and proliferation, making it a critical target for new therapeutic strategies.9 G12C mutation locks the KRAS protein in its active (on) state, leading to continuous, unregulated signalling for cell growth, driving tumour proliferation.8,9
About Roche in lung cancer
Roche is committed to advancing the field of lung cancer treatments, leveraging more than 20 years of deep scientific expertise to improve patient outcomes and their overall experience. Roche’s strong commitment to investment in research and development has built a robust portfolio of approved medicines and companion diagnostics, which empowers physicians to better understand a patient's disease and optimise care.
Roche’s broad portfolio includes approved medicines such as Alecensa® (alectinib), Tecentriq® (atezolizumab), and Rozlytrek® (entrectinib). Its extensive pipeline includes investigational treatments across three key focus areas: small cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with actionable genomic alterations (AGA), and NSCLC without AGA. Utilising diverse approaches, ranging from cancer-cell-killing ‘cytotoxics’ and immunotherapies to treatments targeting specific characteristics of cancer cells, we aim to translate scientific discoveries into meaningful progress in patient care.
About Roche
Roche (SIX: RO, ROP; OTCQX: RHHBY) is a healthcare company uniquely placed to prevent, stop and cure diseases by uniting leading science and technology across diagnostics, medicines and digital solutions.
Roche was founded in Basel, Switzerland in 1896 and today is a leading provider of transformative medicines and diagnostics for millions of people in over 150 countries around the world. It is dedicated to tackling healthcare challenges that place the greatest strain on patients, families, communities and healthcare systems. Across its Diagnostics and Pharmaceutical divisions, Roche focuses on areas including oncology, neurology, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, ophthalmology, infectious diseases and immunology with the aim of providing real and positive change for patients, the people they love and the professionals who care for them.
Genentech in the United States is a fully owned subsidiary in the Roche Group. Roche is the majority shareholder in Chugai Pharmaceutical, a major innovator in the Japanese therapeutic antibody market.
For more information, please visit www.roche.com.
All trademarks used or mentioned in this release are protected by law.
References
[1] Skoulidis F, et al. Krascendo 1: efficacy and safety of divarasib vs sotorasib or adagrasib in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. Presented at: ESMO Congress; 2026 October 23-27; Madrid, Spain. #LBA5.
[2] Skoulidis F, et al. Divarasib as compared with sotorasib or adagrasib in KRAS G12C–mutated NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2026; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605703
[3] Nassar AH, et al. Distribution of KRAS (G12C) Somatic Mutations across Race, Sex, and Cancer Type. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384 (2): 185-187.
[4] Lee JK, et al. Comprehensive pan-cancer genomic landscape of KRAS altered cancers and real-world outcomes in solid tumors. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2022;9;6(1):91.
[5] Wankhede D, et al. Prognostic role of KRAS G12C mutation in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics. 2023: 25;13(19): 3043.
[6] Isaksson J, et al. KRAS G12C Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Linked to Female Sex and High Risk of CNS Metastasis: Population-based Demographics and Survival Data From the National Swedish Lung Cancer Registry. Clin Lung Cancer. 2023: 24(6):507-518.
[7] Endres NF, et al. Discovery and Characterization of Divarasib (GDC-6036), a Potent Covalent Inhibitor of KRAS G12C. J Med Chem. 2026; 69 (5): 5147-5165.
[8] Friedlaender A, et al. KRAS as a druggable target in NSCLC: rising like a phoenix after decades of development failures. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;85:101978.
[9] Pakkala S, et al. Personalized therapy for lung cancer: striking a moving target. JCI Insight. 2018; 3 (15).
[10] World Health Organization. Global cancer burden growing, amidst mounting need for services [Internet; cited 2026 September]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/01-02-2024-global-cancer-burden-growing--amidst-mounting-need-for-services.
[11] American Lung Association. Lung Cancer Statistics [Internet; cited 2026 September]. Available from: https://www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/resource-library/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.
[12] World Health Organization. Lung cancer [Internet; cited 2026 September]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lung-cancer.
Roche Global Media Relations
Phone: +41 61 688 88 88 / e-mail: media.relations@roche.com
Tristan Schmitz
Phone: +41 79 529 70 35Nathalie Altermatt
Phone: +41 79 771 05 25
Lorena Corfas
Phone: +41 79 568 24 95Simon Goldsborough
Phone: +44 797 32 72 915
Karsten Kleine
Phone: +41 79 461 86 83Kirti Pandey
Phone: +41 79 398 38 53
Yvette Petillon
Phone: +41 79 961 92 50Irène Stephan
Phone: +41 79 377 83 75
Albert Thottiyil
Phone: +41 79 775 66 12
Roche Investor Relations
Dr Bruno Eschli
Phone: +41 61 68-75284
e-mail: bruno.eschli@roche.comDr Sabine Borngräber
Phone: +41 61 68-88027
e-mail: sabine.borngraeber@roche.com
Dr Birgit Masjost
Phone: +41 61 68-84814
e-mail: birgit.masjost@roche.com
Investor Relations North America
Loren Kalm
Phone: +1 650 225 3217
e-mail: kalm.loren@gene.com
Attachment
Media&Investor Release divarasib in KRAS G12C lung cancer English
Oct 25 · 15:30·Roche
Education
Developing effective school leaders requires more than preparing educators for administrative responsibilities. It also involves building their capacity to support teachers, navigate organizational challenges, make informed decisions, and create school environments where students…
Oct 25 · 15:18·PR Now
Education
Recently, the “Culture and Technology Roundtable” of the Macao International Forum was held at Macau University of Science and Technology. -- Recently, the “Culture and Technology Roundtable” of the Macao International Forum was held at Macau University of Science and Technology. The conference was jointly organized by the Macao Foundation, Chinese Cultural Figures Magazine, and Macau University of Science and Techno
Oct 25 · 14:38·MarketersMEDIA
Education
Pre-specified and Statistically Powered Key Endpoints Included Progression-free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Although Primary Endpoint of PFS Was Not Met, The Key Secondary Endpoint of OS Was Improved With VAZKEPA/VASCEPA
Oct 25 · 12:11·GlobeNewswire
AI · SaaS
HONG KONG, Oct 25, 2026 - A regional headquarters needs a lease, a few racks, a legal entity, and people who can answer a regulator in English. A large training cluster needs a substation, a long-term power contract, water for cooling, and a construction workforce that will still be on site years after the ribbon cutting. Both get filed under "choosing a data centre market", and the same three cities appear on both shortlists. The criteria behind them barely overlap.
Start with the workload, not the city
That is why this comparison is organised around workloads instead of a league table. Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo each win on at least one axis and lose on at least one, and the axes do not carry equal weight for every tenant. A bank placing a matching engine cares about a 30 ms round trip to the next exchange. A hyperscaler cares whether a large load can be energised before the depreciation schedule eats the business case. Those two buyers should not read the same table the same way.
The three cities are on the shortlist for different reasons, and it helps to say which. Hong Kong is a financial centre with a cable history. Singapore is a Southeast Asian gateway whose government rations power. Tokyo is a domestic market large enough to justify its own supply chain. A tenant that treats them as interchangeable will pick the cheapest lease and spend three years discovering why the choice was wrong.
Six variables follow, each defined, sourced, and then read against the tenants it governs: cross-border latency and cable landings, industrial electricity price, rentable capacity and pipeline, licensing and ownership, technical talent, and the time needed to bring land and power online. The order runs from the questions that eliminate cities fastest to the ones that only break ties.
Six variables, and why these six
Each variable passes a simple test. It changes the answer for at least one plausible tenant, and it can be measured without asking a broker for a favour.
Latency and cable landings decide whether a workload can be split across markets at all. Industrial electricity price is the largest controllable operating cost in a dense hall. Rentable capacity and pipeline decide whether a lease starts this year or in three. Licensing and ownership decide who may hold the asset. Talent decides whether the site can be staffed after the opening. Land and power timelines decide whether the project exists.
Three candidates were dropped. Rack rents went first, because the three markets quote different products: Hong Kong space is commonly priced per square foot of raised floor, Singapore and Tokyo wholesale deals per kW, and neither basis converts cleanly without a density assumption the landlord will not warrant. Land cost per acre went next, because the figures I could reach sit behind subscription walls. Exchange-level latency went last, because venue latency depends on where a cage sits inside the building, which is a negotiation rather than a market statistic.
What remains is narrow on purpose. It will not tell you which city has the better data centre industry. It will tell you which variable is likely to decide your project, and which city that variable points to.
One methodological note before the numbers. Where two credible sources measure the same thing differently, I have kept both and said so instead of averaging them into a figure that belongs to neither. Singapore is the clearest case: the economic development board counts 1.4 GW of computing capacity across more than 70 facilities, while Cushman & Wakefield counts 1,068 MW across 51. The gap is scope, and scope matters more than the midpoint.
Connectivity: the triangle is not equilateral
The three cities sit on one trunk. The Southeast Asia–Japan Cable 2 runs 10,500 km and connects 11 landing stations, with its main trunk linking Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan; the system was designed for 144 Tbps and entered service on 16 July 2025. All three markets can therefore reach each other on capacity from the same build, which removes the old argument that one city is structurally cut off from another.
The geometry still favours Hong Kong. Measured round-trip times between the three metros put Hong Kong 30.18 ms from Singapore and 62.17 ms from Tokyo, while Tokyo and Singapore sit 66.84 ms apart. Hong Kong is the hinge of the triangle and Tokyo is the far corner. For anything that must touch two of the three markets in sequence, that difference compounds with every request.
Cable depth tells a different story. Hong Kong hosts 11 of the 14 intra-Asian submarine cables, according to Digital Realty. Singapore's advantage is breadth of networks rather than cable count: 742 distinct networks have a presence in the metro, against 583 in Hong Kong and 533 in Tokyo, on PeeringDB data. Tokyo's lower count is partly an artefact of how Japanese carriers peer and partly real.
Read together, the connectivity picture splits three ways. Hong Kong is the lowest-latency place to sit if your traffic crosses the Pearl River Delta or shuttles between North and Southeast Asia. Singapore is the better place to buy transit, because more networks are already in the building. Tokyo is the right answer when the traffic is domestic Japanese or headed east across the Pacific, and a costly detour when it is not.
Market
Networks present
RTT to Hong Kong
RTT to Singapore
RTT to Tokyo
Hong Kong
583
—
30.18 ms
62.17 ms
Singapore
742
30.18 ms
—
66.84 ms
Tokyo
533
62.17 ms
66.84 ms
—
Latency measured 25 October 2026 by WonderNetwork. Network counts from PeeringDB, October 2026.
Power: the ranking flips when the tariff class changes
Electricity is where a comparison most easily goes wrong, because "the industrial price" is not one number. Two credible series produce two different orderings of the same three cities, and both are defensible.
Start with country-average business retail prices collected in March 2026. On that basis Hong Kong is cheapest at US$0.169 per kWh, Japan is second at US$0.179, and Singapore is dearest at US$0.212. A mid-sized enterprise buying a few megawatts would look at that table and put Hong Kong first.
Now switch to large-load industrial tariffs, the product a data centre actually buys. Tokyo's special high-voltage average came to 19.40 yen per kWh across January to July 2026, or US$0.119. Hong Kong's all-customer average net tariff was HK$1.406 per kWh from January 2026, or US$0.179. Singapore's high-tension large tariff, weighted for a flat 24-hour load, came to SGD 0.2490 per kWh, or US$0.192. Japan moves from second to first, Hong Kong stays in the middle, and Singapore stays last by a wider margin.
The reversal is not a data error. Hong Kong's published figure is an average across all customer classes, which flatters a large user. Japan's is the actual special high-voltage product. Singapore's includes a contracted capacity charge that a 24-hour load absorbs but a peaky load does not, so a tenant running batch training around the clock faces a different bill from a tenant running a trading floor for part of the day.
Market structure explains part of the gap. Hong Kong sets tariffs under a scheme of control agreed with the government, which is why the published number is an average across customers rather than a menu. Singapore publishes a quarterly regulated tariff alongside a competitive wholesale market, so the same building can buy at two different prices depending on contract length. Japan's retail market is deregulated, and special high-voltage is a reporting category covering all retailers rather than a single offer. A tenant comparing headline numbers is comparing regulatory artefacts as much as fuel costs.
There is a second power variable that does not appear in the tariff: how much of it is low-carbon. Japan generated 23.56% of its electricity from renewables in 2025, Singapore 5.49%, and Hong Kong 1.04%, on Ember data. For a tenant with a corporate renewable target, that gap is a procurement problem in Singapore and a reporting problem in Hong Kong.
Demand is moving in one direction. CLP reported that its data centre electricity sales in Hong Kong grew 7.5% in 2025, driven by AI and digital services. Growth of that order against a fixed generation fleet is how a price advantage disappears.
Capacity: what you can rent, and how fast
Installed capacity is the least interesting number in this comparison, because none of the three markets is short of buildings. What matters is what is empty, what is under construction, and how quickly the empty space is absorbed.
Hong Kong has 592 MW in service across 49 facilities and a vacancy rate of 15.6%, with 185 MW under construction. That is the softest market of the three by a wide margin, and the only one where a tenant with a near-term requirement can plausibly negotiate rather than queue. Vacancy and demand can coexist: in September 2026 Grand Ming agreed to sell two Fanling data centres for up to HK$2.445 billion, about US$312 million, with Amazon identified as the buyer. That is a platform purchase rather than a bet on empty space.
Singapore has 1,068 MW across 51 facilities, a vacancy rate of 4.8%, and just 25 MW under construction. The pipeline equals about half a year of current take-up. New capacity arrives through a government allocation process rather than the open market: at least 300 MW was offered under the 2024 green data centre roadmap, and a second call for applications launched in December 2025 for at least 200 MW more, with additional power possible for proposals that bring new green energy pathways.
Tokyo is the largest market at 1,397 MW across 123 facilities, with 4.4% vacancy and 220 MW under construction. It is also the fastest absorber: 223 MW of take-up in the first half of 2026 alone, against 30 MW in Hong Kong and 25 MW in Singapore. Pre-letting is normal. Colt's Inzai 4 was fully pre-let when it launched, with 4.8 MW energised, on the way to 20 MW at full build and 70 MW across the Inzai campus.
The constraint that binds all three is the grid. Connection waits of more than three years are reported for Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong alike, which means the difference between the markets is less about how fast a utility can connect you and more about whether you can secure an allocation, a site, or a pre-let building that already holds the connection.
Market
Industrial power (US$/kWh)
Operational capacity (MW)
Vacancy
Under construction (MW)
Networks present
Hong Kong
0.179
592
15.6%
185
583
Singapore
0.192
1,068
4.8%
25
742
Tokyo
0.119
1,397
4.4%
220
533
Capacity, vacancy and pipeline from Cushman & Wakefield APAC H1 2026, compiled by Datacentres.com. Power from CLP, SP Group and the Japanese energy surveillance commission, as compiled in the same source.
Construction cost adds a second filter. Turner & Townsend's 2025 index put Singapore at US$14.53 per watt, up 5% year on year, second only to Tokyo and ahead of Silicon Valley; Kuala Lumpur came in at US$11.37 and Shanghai at US$6.12. Hong Kong does not appear in the coverage I could reach, which is itself informative: the market with the most empty space is also the one whose build economics are least publicly documented.
Licensing: the gate is rarely the telecom licence
All three markets allow a foreign investor to own 100% of a data centre operator. The differences sit in who needs a licence and who needs to notify.
Hong Kong licenses facility-based public telecommunications through a unified carrier licence, a single instrument covering fixed and mobile services since August 2008. Running a colocation building does not require one; landing a cable or selling capacity on public circuits does. The investment regime around it is unusually open, with no distinction in law between foreign-controlled and locally controlled companies, and no requirement that directors reside in Hong Kong.
Singapore requires a facilities-based operator licence to deploy network infrastructure and sell capacity, and the market has been fully liberalised since 2000, with foreign and domestic firms applying on the same terms. The State Department's investment climate report counted 76 facilities-based operators. A colocation landlord that does not run public transmission sits outside the licence, but any tenant wanting to resell cross-border capacity will need a partner that holds one.
Japan is the outlier in ownership terms, though not where a data centre tenant would feel it. The foreign ownership caps that exist apply to NTT at 33.3% and to broadcasters below 20%, not to data centres. What does apply is a prior-notification regime: acquisitions of 10% or more of a company in a designated core industry require filing with the finance ministry and the sector regulator, a step that matters for anyone buying an operating platform rather than building one. Entity setup is quick by regional standards, at about one month for a branch and two for a subsidiary.
Administrative speed is not the constraint in any of the three. Hong Kong registers a local company through a single electronic platform, typically on the same day, and a non-Hong Kong company in about two weeks. Japan measures entity setup in one to two months, which is fast for the region. The months that decide a project timeline are spent on land, power and construction approvals, not on the corporate paperwork.
The practical gate in all three sits upstream of the licence. In Singapore it is the power allocation. In Hong Kong it is land, since almost every new hall involves a lease modification or a government site. In Tokyo it is the grid connection queue and, increasingly, local consent.
Talent: a proxy with a wide error bar
There is no comparable public count of liquid-cooling technicians by city, so the usable measure here is a proxy with its limits stated. The IMD World Talent Ranking places Hong Kong 4th, Singapore 7th and Japan 40th out of 69 economies in 2025, scoring investment in education, appeal to foreign talent, and the readiness of the existing pool.
That ranking measures economies, not data centres, and it will not tell you whether a specific metro can staff a round-the-clock network operations centre in English. It does capture something a site-selection memo usually misses: the difference between a place where a shift team can be hired in weeks and a place where one has to be imported. For a regional headquarters with a small technical team, Hong Kong and Singapore are close enough that the decision will be settled on cost and lease terms. For a Japanese-language operation serving domestic customers, Tokyo's rank is irrelevant and its local labour market is the only one that counts.
Reading the matrix
Three readings follow from the tables, and they point in different directions. On latency, Hong Kong wins and Tokyo loses. On industrial power, Tokyo wins and Singapore loses. On available capacity, Hong Kong wins and Singapore loses. On network depth, Singapore wins. On market size and absorption, Tokyo wins. No city is first on more than two of the five, and that distribution is the finding: a comparison that produced a single winner would be hiding the trade the buyer actually has to make.
Where the data runs out
Four gaps are worth naming, because each one is a place where a confident-looking table would be inventing precision. Rack rents are not comparable across the three markets, for the reasons given earlier. Land cost per acre is published by the major brokers but sits behind subscription walls in every case I could reach. Permit timelines are estimated rather than observed, and the benchmarks behind them predate the current build cycle. Exchange-level latency, as opposed to metro-to-metro latency, is negotiated per cage and not published on a consistent basis.
Two smaller gaps matter for specific tenants. Hong Kong's construction cost per watt is missing from the most recent index coverage I could obtain, so the market with the most vacant space cannot be priced on a like-for-like basis against Singapore and Tokyo. And the three markets define installed capacity differently enough that Singapore's total shifts by roughly a third depending on whether captive capacity is counted, which is why the table uses one compiler throughout instead of mixing sources.
What would change these conclusions is specific and observable. If Hong Kong's 185 MW under construction is absorbed at anything like Tokyo's rate, its vacancy advantage disappears and the negotiating leverage moves to the landlord. If Singapore's second allocation clears and the awarded capacity is energised, its pipeline constraint eases, though the power price and the green conditions stay. If Tokyo's grid queue shortens, its cost advantage compounds. None of these is a forecast; each is a number to re-check before signing.
If you need X, choose Y
Latency-sensitive trading or settlement across North and Southeast Asia: Hong Kong. The 30.18 ms round trip to Singapore and 62.17 ms to Tokyo are the best pair in the set, and 11 of the 14 intra-Asian cables land there.
A large, near-term block of space with negotiating leverage: Hong Kong. A 15.6% vacancy rate and 185 MW under construction are the only combination in the three markets that gives a tenant a credible alternative to the incumbent landlord.
Deep peering and the widest choice of transit partners: Singapore. 742 networks is the largest ecosystem of the three, and it is why Singapore remains the default for cloud on-ramps even at the highest power price.
The cheapest energy for a round-the-clock, power-dense load: Tokyo. At US$0.119 per kWh on the special high-voltage tariff, Japan is the only one of the three below twelve cents, and a 23.56% renewable share helps a corporate target as well as a bill.
Scale without a government allocation: Tokyo, but only through a pre-let. 220 MW under construction against 223 MW absorbed in a single half-year means the buildings that exist are already spoken for, so the route is a negotiation with an operator rather than an application to a ministry.
A regional headquarters with a small technical team and an English-speaking regulator: Singapore or Hong Kong. The talent proxy puts them 7th and 4th against Japan's 40th, and neither licensing regime imposes an ownership condition that would complicate a holding structure.
A green-field campus where a renewable power purchase agreement is the binding constraint: Singapore, if you can win an allocation, and nowhere if you cannot. The 200 MW second call is the main route to new capacity, and it is scored on green energy pathways rather than price.
Sources
Submarine Networks, SJC2 system profile. https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/intra-asia/sjc2
Digital Realty, Hong Kong data centres. https://www.digitalrealty.co.uk/data-centers/china
WonderNetwork, ping statistics between Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo, 25 October 2026. https://wondernetwork.com/pings/Singapore
WonderNetwork, latency from Tokyo to Asian cities. https://wondernetwork.com/pings/Tokyo
WonderNetwork, Tokyo to Singapore. https://wondernetwork.com/pings/Tokyo/Singapore
Datacentres.com, Hong Kong market report. https://www.datacentres.com/markets/hong-kong
Datacentres.com, Singapore market report. https://www.datacentres.com/markets/singapore
Datacentres.com, Tokyo market report. https://www.datacentres.com/markets/tokyo
GlobalPetrolPrices, Hong Kong electricity prices, March 2026. https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Hong-Kong/electricity_prices/
GlobalPetrolPrices, Singapore electricity prices, March 2026. https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Singapore/electricity_prices/
This article was prepared by the expert team at Global Infinity, drawing on insights and data provided through its MCP data services.
About Global Infinity
Global Infinity is an AI innovation company specializing in MCP data services.
Website: https://globalinfinity.hk
Email: support@globalinfinity.hk
Oct 25 · 08:00·ACN Newswire
Healthcare · Education
Suturing workshop
Oct 25 · 07:00·24-7 Press Release
SaaS · Media
-- XUANNOVA held a product presentation in Los Angeles, introducing its approach to classical literature, traditional cultural knowledge, and multilingual digital learning. Designed for people interested in Eastern culture, the platform brings reference materials, thematic content, and online study tools together in one place. As digital formats create new opportunities for cultural exchange, XUANNOVA aims to make tr
Oct 25 · 05:21·MarketersMEDIA
Education
Brentwood-based Anchored Counseling Company is expanding professional education for area therapists. The team's training in compassionate exposure-based care follows a widely recommended approach to treating anxiety and panic attacks. BRENTWOOD, Tenn., Oct. 24, 2026 --...
Oct 24 · 22:25·PRWeb
Finance · Healthcare
GLENDALE, CA - October 25, 2026 - Known throughout Southern California as the "Jewel City," Glendale boasts iconic cultural treasures, from the historic Alex Theatre and the Museum of Neon Art to the Americana at Brand and the upcoming Armenian Museum. Yet, tucked right along Brand Boulevard lies a destination unlike any other on the planet: The Martial Arts History Museum.
Now celebrating its 27th year, the Martial Arts History Museum is the only institution of its kind in the world - a distinction that puts Glendale on the global map for cultural tourism, history, and education. Since relocating from Burbank to its spacious 8,000-square-foot facility on Brand and Wilson, the museum has drawn thousands of visitors from across the country and around the globe. In fact, the majority of all its visitors are from out of country.
A Bridge Between Cultures and Communities
Thanks to the visionary leadership of Museum President Michael Matsuda, alongside key support from local champions like Mayor Ardy Kassakhian and Eric Fleishman who spearheaded the move from Burbank to Glendale, the expanded location has allowed the museum to grow into a vibrant multi-cultural hub. Beyond honoring traditional Asian martial arts, history, and art, the museum features special exhibits celebrating Armenian heritage, Native American history, Celtic traditions, and the powerful legacy of Warrior Women.
"We are honored to call Glendale our home," says Museum President Michael Matsuda. "It took tremendous vision and hard work to build this cultural gem in the heart of the city, and our goal is to ensure it remains a cornerstone of Glendale’s artistic and educational identity for decades to come."
Looking Toward the Future: Expanding Community Impact
The clock is ticking on their current lease, and with less than two years, the Martial Arts History Museum is gearing up to hopefully relocate to another facility within Glendale. A fundraising effort is being launched to help them raise enough funds for the move.
Beyond historical preservation, the non-profit institution acts as a vital community resource, hosting specialized outreach programs for local senior centers, individuals living with dementia, and those with special needs.
Their plans for the upcoming new facility include dedicated spaces for health and wellness lectures, senior Tai Chi classes, and expanded community workshops.
"We offer so much more to Glendale than people realize," Matsuda adds. "We bring global tourism to Brand Boulevard, preserve living history, and provide compassionate outreach to our local seniors and special-needs residents.”
Museum Visitor Information & Support
Hours: Wednesday - Sunday, 11:00 AM - 6:00 PM
Admission: $12 Adults | $5 Children
Location: 201 N. Brand Blvd., B100, at Wilson Ave., Glendale, CA
Support: As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the museum relies on community donations, sponsorships, and support to fuel its expansion and community outreach programs.
To learn more, donate, or plan your visit, please go to MAmuseum.com.
Oct 24 · 20:13·NewMediaWire
Retail · Education
Highlighting the Continuing Importance of HACCP Training as Global Food Safety Certification Requirements Evolve The website was easy to follow and the course was reasonably priced! The fact that you can take the course at your own pace was very helpful.” — Frontier Meat Packing Connect LUNENBURG, NS, CANADA, October 24, 2026 / EINPresswire.com / -- To meet consumer expectations, increasingly stringent industry stand
Oct 24 · 19:23·EIN Presswire
Education
Quote on why we built the website See the story artwork New initiative will provide learning resources, contributor interviews, and practical guidance for professionals who want to share verified information. We want to help people develop their ideas, support their statements with facts, and communicate in ways that inform rather than simply attract attention.” — Adrienne Barker, MAS DAYTONA BEACH, FL, UNITED STATES
Oct 24 · 18:56·EIN Presswire