Fly.io, Inc. Due Diligence

Run due diligence on Fly.io, Inc.: check incident history and compliance and get alerts when suppliers or ownership change.

United States · owned by Independent (United States) · fly.io · 21 vendors

Fly.io is a developer-focused public cloud platform that enables users to deploy and run full-stack applications and databases globally. It provides a network of servers to host applications close to end-users, aiming to reduce latency and improve performance. Developers can deploy Dockerized applications and scale them across various regions.

Resilience scores

Disruption prediction

Fly.io, Inc.: 3 critical incidents expected in the next three months, based on its recorded incident history.

Forecast estimates are rounded up to whole numbers.

No active incident reported (its status page, as of 2026-11-09 17:25 UTC)

13 of Fly.io, Inc.'s 21 vendors have incident tracking.

Technology vendors

Services catalogue

3 services in catalogue across 3 categories; runs on 21 sub-vendors.

Insights

Last updated 2026-04-22 · revision 1

21 direct vendors, 203 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Compliance

6 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

SOC 2 (source) — Evidence found

Evidence: https://fly.io/blog/soc2-the-screenshots-will-continue-until-security-improves, https://fly.io/docs/security/security-at-fly-io

HIPAA (source) — Evidence found

Evidence: https://fly.io/docs/about/healthcare, https://fly.io/docs/security/security-at-fly-io

ISAE 3000 (source) — No public evidence

Financials

Three-year financials

Financial Resilience Score: 5/10

Fly.io demonstrates several structural strengths that support a moderate financial resilience score. Its usage-based revenue model lowers customer acquisition friction and enables organic revenue growth as customers scale, a pattern associated with strong net revenue retention in infrastructure businesses. The decision to run on owned physical servers rather than renting capacity from hyperscalers has the potential to yield superior gross margins over time, and the company's lean headcount of approximately 50–55 people suggests a capital-efficient operating philosophy relative to the global infrastructure footprint it maintains across 18 regions. However, the complete absence of publicly disclosed or audited financial data makes it impossible to independently verify revenue, burn rate, profitability, or solvency. The company is entirely dependent on continued venture funding or achieving cash-flow breakeven, and no disclosed path to profitability exists in the public domain. Running owned metal infrastructure is capital-intensive, requiring significant upfront capex for servers, colocation, and networking, which can place meaningful strain on a VC-backed startup's balance sheet. Competitive risks are substantial. Fly.io competes directly against AWS (Fargate, Lambda), Google Cloud Run, Render, Railway, and Heroku, all of which command vastly greater capital resources, brand recognition, and customer lock-in. The customer base appears concentrated in the startup and individual developer segment, which historically exhibits higher churn rates if those customers fail or migrate to hyperscalers as they scale. The score of 5 reflects a balanced but uncertain picture: the company has genuine technical differentiation, a growing AI infrastructure narrative, notable customers, and SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, but the opacity of its financials, capital intensity of its model, competitive environment, and funding dependency introduce risks that cannot be quantified without direct disclosure under NDA.

Key strengths: Usage-based consumption pricing model supports organic revenue growth and low adoption friction, Own-metal infrastructure (KVM-based) provides potential for superior gross margins vs. reseller competitors, Developer-led community growth reduces customer acquisition costs, SOC 2 Type 2 attestation reduces enterprise sales friction, Notable customers including Supabase, Builder.io, Imbue, and Beam indicate real market traction, Lean team of ~50–55 people suggests capital-efficient operations, Differentiated AI infrastructure product (Sprites sandboxes) positions company in high-growth niche, Approximately $50M total venture funding raised provides operational runway

Risk factors: No audited financial statements available in any public registry — revenue, burn rate, and solvency cannot be independently verified, High competitive intensity against AWS, Google Cloud Run, Render, Railway, and Heroku with vastly greater capital resources, Own-metal infrastructure model is capital-intensive, requiring significant upfront capex for servers, colocation, and networking, Customer base concentrated in startups and individual developers, segments with historically high churn, Continued operations dependent on additional venture funding or achieving undisclosed cash-flow breakeven, Small team (~50 persons) operating global infrastructure across 18 regions creates key-person and operational resilience risks, No disclosed path to profitability or public valuation benchmark

Workforce by country

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report