Modular Subgraph Composition, as championed by The Graph's Substreams and frameworks like Subsquid, excels at scalability and specialization because it decouples data extraction, transformation, and serving into independent, reusable modules. For example, a single Substreams module indexing Ethereum ERC-20 transfers can be composed into multiple downstream subgraphs, drastically reducing redundant computation and enabling 10-100x faster sync times for complex data pipelines compared to a monolithic rebuild.
LABS
Comparisons
Subgraph Composition (Modular) vs Monolithic Subgraph Design
A technical comparison for engineering leaders on structuring subgraphs for The Graph Network, analyzing modular composition against monolithic designs for scalability, cost, and developer velocity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A foundational comparison of two competing architectural paradigms for building blockchain data layers.
Monolithic Subgraph Design, the traditional approach within The Graph's hosted service, takes a different approach by bundling the entire data pipeline—from event ingestion to GraphQL API—into a single, self-contained unit. This results in a trade-off of simplicity for flexibility; development is straightforward using the GraphQL Schema Definition Language (SDL) and AssemblyScript, but scaling requires deploying entirely new subgraphs, leading to data silos and higher operational overhead for cross-chain or multi-protocol applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, proven stability, and a unified query endpoint for a single protocol, a Monolithic Subgraph is often the fastest path to production. If you prioritize horizontal scalability, cross-chain data aggregation, and the ability for different teams to own pieces of the data pipeline, then a Modular Composition architecture is the strategic choice for future-proofing your data infrastructure.
tldr-summary
Modular vs. Monolithic
TL;DR Summary
A high-level comparison of two distinct approaches to building and managing blockchain data subgraphs, highlighting their core architectural trade-offs.
01
Modular Subgraph Pros
Specialized, Composable Components: Decouples data sourcing, transformation, and serving into separate modules (e.g., a dedicated indexer for EVM logs, a separate processor for Solana). This enables best-in-class tooling per layer (like using Ponder for indexing and The Graph for queries). Ideal for multi-chain protocols or teams needing to mix and match data sources.
02
Modular Subgraph Cons
Increased Operational Complexity: Managing multiple services (indexers, databases, APIs) introduces coordination overhead and deployment friction. Requires expertise in orchestration tools (Docker, Kubernetes) and can lead to higher initial setup costs. Not suitable for simple, single-chain dApps where a unified stack is more efficient.
03
Monolithic Subgraph Pros
Unified, Streamlined Development: The entire data pipeline—from blockchain ingestion to GraphQL API—is defined and deployed as a single unit (e.g., a single Subgraph on The Graph Network). Offers a single SDK (Graph CLI) and hosted service, drastically reducing DevOps burden. Perfect for rapid prototyping and teams with limited infra resources.
04
Monolithic Subgraph Cons
Vendor and Tech Stack Lock-in: Tightly coupled to a specific subgraph implementation (e.g., AssemblyScript mappings on The Graph). Difficult to customize or replace individual layers (like the indexing engine or database). Can become a bottleneck for complex data transformations or cross-chain logic that exceeds the framework's design.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Subgraph Composition (Modular) vs. Monolithic Subgraph Design
Direct comparison of architectural approaches for building blockchain data APIs.
| Metric / Feature | Modular Subgraph Composition | Monolithic Subgraph Design |
|---|---|---|
Development Agility (Add New Data) | ||
Query Performance (Complex Joins) | Slower (Multi-subgraph) | Faster (Single-subgraph) |
Team Independence | ||
Deployment & Update Overhead | Per Subgraph | Full Re-deploy |
Data Source Flexibility | Multi-chain/Contract | Single Contract |
Initial Setup Complexity | Higher | Lower |
Best For | Multi-protocol apps, large teams | Single-protocol apps, rapid MVPs |
pros-cons-a
Architectural Trade-offs at a Glance
Pros and Cons: Modular Subgraph Composition
Choosing between modular composition (e.g., Substreams + Subgraphs) and a monolithic Subgraph design is a foundational decision. This comparison highlights the key technical and operational trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
01
Modular: Developer Velocity
Parallel development and reusability: Teams can build independent Substreams modules (e.g., for ERC-20 transfers) and compose them across multiple Subgraphs. This reduces boilerplate by ~70% for common patterns, accelerating iteration for protocols like Uniswap or Aave that need to index similar events across many deployments.
~70%
Boilerplate Reduction
02
Modular: Performance at Scale
Deterministic, Rust-based execution: Substreams modules process blockchain data in a firehose stream, enabling sub-second data availability for downstream Subgraphs. This is critical for high-frequency dApps (e.g., perpetual DEX front-ends) that cannot tolerate the several-minute lag of a traditional Subgraph syncing from scratch.
< 1 sec
Data Latency
03
Monolithic: Simplicity & Maturity
Single-stack expertise: The traditional Graph Node + Subgraph stack has a mature toolchain (Graph CLI, The Graph Explorer) and extensive documentation. With over 40,000+ deployed subgraphs, finding developers with experience and pre-built examples for protocols like Compound or ENS is significantly easier, reducing initial time-to-index.
40,000+
Deployed Subgraphs
04
Monolithic: Operational Consistency
Unified deployment and debugging: A single Subgraph definition (manifest, schema, mappings) is deployed, indexed, and queried from one endpoint. This simplifies monitoring, logging, and debugging compared to orchestrating a pipeline of Substreams modules, a hosted Subgraph, and potential data sinks. Ideal for stable protocols with well-defined indexing logic.
05
Modular: Complexity Overhead
Multi-component orchestration: Requires managing Substreams development (Rust), Subgraph definitions, and the data flow between them. This introduces new failure modes and demands expertise in two systems. Not recommended for small teams or MVPs where development speed outweighs future scalability needs.
06
Monolithic: Scaling Bottlenecks
Linear, sequential processing: Monolithic Subgraphs must re-process the entire chain from genesis for each new deployment or schema change. Syncing a complex Subgraph for a chain like Arbitrum can take 6+ hours, making rapid iteration and handling chain reorganizations for high-TPS applications operationally challenging.
6+ hours
Initial Sync Time
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
Pros and Cons: Monolithic vs. Modular Subgraph Design
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for The Graph's two primary design patterns.
01
Monolithic Design: Key Strength
Simplified deployment and management: A single subgraph indexes all required data contracts and events. This reduces coordination overhead and is ideal for rapid prototyping or projects with tightly coupled logic, like a simple DEX aggregator.
02
Monolithic Design: Key Weakness
Inflexible scaling and high failure risk: The entire subgraph is a single point of failure. If one data source has an error or requires a re-index, the entire API becomes unavailable. Scaling compute for one entity requires scaling the entire monolithic subgraph.
03
Modular Design: Key Strength
Independent scaling and fault isolation: By composing multiple subgraphs (e.g., one for ERC20 tokens, one for UniswapV3Pool events), teams can update, re-index, and scale components independently. This is critical for production-grade protocols like Aave or Compound that manage complex, evolving data schemas.
04
Modular Design: Key Weakness
Increased development and orchestration complexity: Requires managing multiple subgraph manifests, deployments, and cross-subgraph relationships. This introduces overhead for schema versioning and query composition, demanding more sophisticated DevOps practices and tooling like Subgraph Studio.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Design
Modular Subgraph Composition for DeFi
Verdict: The clear choice for complex, high-TVL applications. Strengths: Enables building a data mesh where specialized subgraphs handle specific protocol domains (e.g., one for Uniswap V3 pools, another for Aave lending positions). This isolates failures, allows for independent scaling of high-traffic data streams, and simplifies maintenance for large teams. It's essential for protocols like Compound or Balancer that need to aggregate data from multiple contract versions and external price feeds.
Monolithic Subgraph for DeFi
Verdict: Suitable only for simple, single-protocol dashboards or MVPs. Weaknesses: A single, massive subgraph indexing all DeFi activity becomes a single point of failure and is notoriously difficult to update without downtime. Query performance degrades as TVL and transaction volume grow, leading to slow front-ends. Not recommended for production-grade DeFi.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your architectural choice between modular and monolithic subgraph designs.
Modular Subgraph Composition excels at developer velocity and maintainability because it enables code reuse and independent iteration. For example, a protocol like Uniswap V3 can have a core pool subgraph that is composed into separate trading-volume and liquidity-provider subgraphs, allowing specialized teams to update logic without redeploying the entire data layer. This approach reduces development cycles by an estimated 30-40% for complex protocols and aligns with the The Graph's vision for a decentralized data economy.
Monolithic Subgraph Design takes a different approach by bundling all entity logic into a single mapping file. This results in superior query performance and lower operational overhead for simpler applications, as there is no inter-subgraph communication latency. A monolithic subgraph for a standard ERC-20 token can achieve sub-100ms query times consistently, but it creates a single point of failure and scaling bottleneck; adding new features requires a full redeployment, which can take hours to re-sync on mainnet.
The key trade-off is between agility and raw performance. If your priority is rapid iteration, team scalability, and building on a composable data layer (e.g., for a rapidly evolving DeFi protocol or an NFT platform with multiple data products), choose Modular Composition. If you prioritize minimal latency, simplicity, and have a stable, well-defined schema (e.g., for a straightforward token dashboard or a static registry), a Monolithic Design is the more straightforward and performant choice.
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