Compare

MIOSA vs Fly.io

Fly.io runs apps as machines close to your users. MIOSA runs services, computers and sandboxes on one platform. This page compares what each documents.

MIOSA F Fly.io

Every competitor statement is from Fly.io’s own public documentation (fly.io/docs, as of 2026-10-23). MIOSA statements link to the page that documents them. Where MIOSA has no equivalent, the row says so.

Workloads

CapabilityMIOSAFly.io
Long-running app from an image or repositoryYes, Services run modes server, worker, cron, staticYes, apps on Machines
Direct control of a VMYes, Computers with a full Linux desktopYes, Machines
Ephemeral code executionYes, SandboxesNot the documented model; Machines are long-lived by default
Config as codemiosa.json / miosa.app.ymlfly.toml
Multiple regionsus-east, us-west, us-miaA wider published region list

Sources: services, computers, sandboxes, and Fly.io’s Machines and fly.toml reference.

Networking and data

CapabilityMIOSAFly.io
Private networking between a project’s servicesSame host today; wider private networking is not generally availableDocumented private networking across a region
Public address per serviceYes, <label>.<org>.miosa.app, plus custom domainsYes, *.fly.dev plus certificates
Managed Postgres, MySQL, Redis, MongoDBYesManaged Postgres is documented; other engines are run by you
Public database endpoint with an allowlistYes, TLS onlyConnections are documented through your own proxy or app

Sources: custom domains, databases, public endpoint.

What MIOSA does not have

  • Fly.io’s region coverage. Three regions, named above; nothing else is claimed.
  • Cross-host private networking between services. Same-host private networking works today.

When to choose each

  • Choose Fly.io if you need its region footprint or you already run your networking around it.
  • Choose MIOSA if your product also needs sandboxes and agent workloads, a console for customers of your own, or one platform for machines, services and data.
Was this page helpful?