The company I use ranges from $136-$495 per month, per server, ranging from low-end (AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+) to enterprise (Intel Dual Xeon X5650, A/B Power).
The biggest pro for renting a server is if hardware fails they replace it for you. But if you have enterprise servers, $400+ a month can get expensive.
At what point would colocation be more cost effective? As in, how many servers would have have to be renting for colocation to be better? Any other pros and cons?
Actually, they are bundling the cost of a maintenance contract with the hardware vendor into your monthly fee. The real advantage is that you don't need to buy or build a datacenter.
There's three ways to get servers: owning, renting space, or renting servers.
Owning
Pros:
Cons:
Renting space
Instead of paying once to build a datacenter, you rent a scalable number of racks (or rack units) in a colo's datacenter.
Advantages:
Disadvantages
Renting servers
It's like renting rack-space, except you also don't own the servers. You can rent whole servers or shared servers.
Advantages
Disadvantages
People Whether they're on your payroll or your hosting provider's payroll, someone needs to maintain IT gear. If building your own datacenter would force you to hire someone to manage the physics behind the technology (cable management, environmentals, etc.), then factor that into the cost. If you can just make your network admin do it for no more than he or she currently makes, then don't.
I don't think there's a magic number. It's a business decision. If you need certain specifications that aren't available from the host, you should co-locate. If you can support your own hardware, and trust smart hands enough to handle minor issues, co-locate.
Evaluate your footprint and see what the fee structure looks like at the colo.