‘Smartness’ is a socio-political tool restructuring the interpretation, infrastructure and behaviour of the city. In the prevalent rhetoric of ‘smart’ cities, which is characterised by apparent impartiality, disinterest, neutrality and objectivity, equality is rarely mentioned, interrogated, discussed or assessed. As shown by a series of ‘smart’ cities: Toronto—Google urbanism, Xinjiang —the ‘smart’ prison and Amaravati —the concrete on halt farm, ‘smartness’ does not stop inequality correspondingly; it can rather (often) perpetuate or increase it. Under the sharp shadows of the imperceptible algorithmic ‘smart’ logic, the paper will investigate power asymmetry, lack of accountability, transparency, the shortage of a civic debate and the lack of equality's weight in the ‘smart’ equation in prevalent ‘smart’ cities. Foreseeing the algorithmic inclusion in the cities must come with an integrated debate and policies on equality. In an age where digital ‘smartness’ parameters seem to drive urban decisions, this paper will question: Who are the people really benefiting? What is the value offered to society? How is it being discussed? Who is currently framing the urban 'smart' equality? In which instances equality is debated? By whom should it be discussed?