The Graph's Subgraphs excel at providing censorship-resistant, verifiable data because queries are served by a decentralized network of Indexers, secured by the GRT token. This ensures data integrity and availability, critical for trustless systems like DIDs (Decentralized Identifiers) and on-chain reputation protocols. For example, a subgraph indexing Ceramic Network streams can provide a permanent, tamper-proof record of credential issuance and revocation events, independent of any single API endpoint.
LABS
Comparisons
The Graph's Subgraphs for Querying VCs vs Centralized APIs
A technical analysis comparing decentralized indexing via The Graph's subgraphs against building custom, centralized API backends for querying on-chain and off-chain Verifiable Credentials. Evaluates architecture, cost, performance, and long-term viability for enterprise-grade identity systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Querying Dilemma for Decentralized Identity
Choosing between decentralized subgraphs and centralized APIs for querying Verifiable Credentials (VCs) is a foundational architectural decision with significant trade-offs.
Centralized APIs (e.g., custom endpoints, services from Spruce ID or Microsoft Entra) take a different approach by prioritizing developer experience and predictable performance. This results in a trade-off: you gain lower latency (often sub-100ms), simpler integration, and managed scalability, but you reintroduce a single point of failure and control, which contradicts the core ethos of self-sovereign identity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing decentralization, auditability, and alignment with Web3 principles for your identity layer, choose The Graph. Its subgraphs are ideal for protocols like Veramo or Sismo that require provable data provenance. If you prioritize rapid development, cost predictability, and high-throughput queries for enterprise applications, a well-designed centralized API is the pragmatic choice, especially for bridging to traditional systems.
tldr-summary
The Graph's Subgraphs vs. Centralized APIs
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for blockchain data querying.
01
The Graph: Decentralized & Censorship-Resistant
Decentralized Indexing: Data is served by a network of Indexers, Curators, and Delegators, not a single entity. This matters for protocols requiring data integrity guarantees and resilience against API takedowns or corporate policy changes.
800+
Active Indexers
03
Centralized APIs: Performance & Simplicity
Low-Latency & High Throughput: Managed services like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode offer sub-second response times and >99.9% uptime SLAs. This is non-negotiable for consumer-facing dApps (NFT marketplaces, wallets) where user experience is paramount.
< 100ms
Typical P95 Latency
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
The Graph Subgraphs vs Centralized APIs: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of decentralized indexing (The Graph) and traditional centralized APIs for blockchain data querying.
| Metric / Feature | The Graph Subgraphs | Centralized APIs (e.g., Alchemy, Infura) |
|---|---|---|
Data Provenance & Trust | On-chain, verifiable via network consensus | Off-chain, reliant on provider trust |
Query Cost Model | GRT token, pay-per-query via gateways | Fixed monthly subscription or pay-per-call |
Uptime SLA (Service Level Agreement) | Decentralized network, no single point of failure | 99.9%+ (provider-dependent, contractual) |
Data Freshness (Indexing Latency) | ~1 block confirmation delay | Near-instant (sub-second) |
Custom Data Logic Support | ||
Protocol & Chain Support | 40+ networks (EVM, Cosmos, NEAR, Solana) | Typically 1-5 major chains (EVM-focused) |
Developer Onboarding Complexity | Medium (requires subgraph definition) | Low (standard REST/WebSocket endpoints) |
pros-cons-a
Decentralized Indexing vs. Centralized APIs
The Graph's Subgraphs: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for querying Verifiable Credentials (VCs) and other on-chain data.
01
Pro: Censorship-Resistant Data
Decentralized network of Indexers: Data is served by a permissionless network of 500+ Indexers, making it resilient to single points of failure or takedown. This matters for protocols requiring immutable data guarantees, like decentralized identity (Ceramic, Veramo) or permanent record-keeping.
02
Pro: Transparent Cost & Incentives
Predictable query pricing via GRT: Costs are set by a decentralized marketplace, not a SaaS vendor. This matters for budget forecasting and protocol sustainability, allowing projects like Aave or Uniswap to build cost models around their subgraph queries without vendor lock-in risk.
03
Con: Development & Maintenance Overhead
Subgraph definition and curation: Requires writing and deploying GraphQL schemas and mappings in AssemblyScript. This matters for teams with limited blockchain dev resources, as maintaining subgraphs for complex logic (e.g., NFT rarity scores) adds significant engineering overhead compared to a simple REST API call.
04
Con: Latency & Performance Variability
Network-synced indexing delays: Subgraphs must sync with the blockchain, causing initial delays (hours for full sync) and potential lag behind the chain head. This matters for real-time applications like high-frequency dashboards or trading bots, where centralized APIs (Alchemy, Infura) offer sub-second latency guarantees.
05
Pro: Verifiable Data Integrity
Cryptographic proofs of indexing: Indexers provide proofs that query results are derived from canonical chain data. This matters for applications where data provenance is critical, such as on-chain KYC credentials, attestation protocols (EAS), or audit trails, ensuring the data hasn't been tampered with.
06
Con: Query Complexity & Cost Scaling
GRT cost scales with compute: Complex queries (multi-contract joins, heavy aggregations) consume more "query fees," making costs unpredictable for high-volume applications. This matters for mass-consumer dApps or analytics platforms, where a centralized API with a fixed monthly rate (Moralis, QuickNode) can be more economical.
pros-cons-b
The Graph's Subgraphs vs. Centralized APIs
Centralized API Backend: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for querying verifiable credentials (VCs) at a glance.
01
The Graph: Decentralized Resilience
Censorship-resistant indexing: Data is served by a network of independent Indexers, not a single corporate entity. This matters for permissionless protocols like decentralized identity (e.g., Veramo, Ceramic) where uptime and neutrality are non-negotiable.
02
The Graph: Transparent Cost Structure
Predictable, on-chain billing: Query fees are paid in GRT to Indexers via a clear marketplace. This matters for budget forecasting in DAOs or protocols (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) that require immutable audit trails for operational expenses.
03
Centralized API: Performance & Latency
Sub-100ms global response times: Managed services like Alchemy, Infura, or custom backends can leverage CDNs and optimized databases. This matters for user-facing dApps (e.g., NFT marketplaces, wallets) where a slow UI directly impacts retention and conversion.
04
Centralized API: Development Velocity
Rapid iteration and debugging: Full control over the stack (PostgreSQL, Redis) allows for immediate schema changes and complex aggregations. This matters for MVPs and startups (e.g., a new credential issuer) that need to pivot quickly without coordinating with a decentralized network.
05
The Graph: Protocol Overhead
Steeper initial development curve: Defining and deploying subgraphs requires learning GraphQL and The Graph's toolchain. This matters for teams with tight deadlines where time-to-market is more critical than long-term decentralization.
06
Centralized API: Centralized Risk
Single point of failure and control: Service downtime, API rate limiting, or policy changes can cripple your application. This matters for mission-critical financial logic or systems requiring maximum uptime guarantees beyond a provider's SLA.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Scenario-Based Guide
The Graph's Subgraphs for Protocol Architects
Verdict: The default choice for production-grade, composable data. Strengths: Subgraphs create a permanent, verifiable, and decentralized data layer. Once deployed, your protocol's data schema and indexing logic become a public good, enabling seamless integration by wallets, analytics dashboards, and other protocols (e.g., Uniswap's subgraph). This eliminates vendor lock-in and ensures long-term data availability. Use for core metrics like TVL, volume, and user counts where data integrity and ecosystem composability are paramount.
Centralized APIs for Protocol Architects
Verdict: A tactical solution for rapid prototyping or internal tooling. Strengths: Services like Alchemy, Moralis, or Covalent offer instant access to normalized data across multiple chains without any DevOps overhead. Ideal for building internal admin panels, initial MVPs, or backtesting systems where time-to-market is critical and the data schema is volatile. However, you accept the risk of API changes, rate limits, and centralization.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to help CTOs choose between decentralized subgraphs and centralized APIs for blockchain data access.
The Graph's Subgraphs excel at providing verifiable, permissionless data because they are built on a decentralized network of Indexers. This architecture ensures censorship resistance and data integrity through cryptographic proofs, making it ideal for protocols like Uniswap or Aave that require transparent, on-chain data feeds. For example, the Uniswap v3 subgraph processes millions of daily queries with 99.9%+ uptime, serving as the backbone for its analytics dashboard and many third-party applications without a single point of failure.
Centralized APIs (e.g., Alchemy, Infura, Moralis) take a different approach by offering managed, high-performance endpoints. This results in superior latency (often <100ms) and developer convenience, with features like automatic rate limiting, dedicated support, and integrated tooling. The trade-off is centralized trust; you rely on the provider's infrastructure and their commitment to uptime, as seen when a major provider's outage can temporarily cripple dependent dApps.
The key trade-off is between sovereignty and speed. If your priority is decentralization, long-term data reliability, and building a protocol-native data layer, choose The Graph. This is critical for DeFi protocols, DAOs, and any application where the data query logic itself must be a transparent, on-chain public good. If you prioritize rapid development, predictable low-latency performance, and managed infrastructure for a consumer-facing app, choose a centralized API. This is often the right choice for wallets, NFT marketplaces, and dashboards where user experience is paramount and the data pipeline is not core to the protocol's trust model.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall