Alchemy's Bundler API excels at enabling next-generation user experiences through ERC-4337 Account Abstraction. By abstracting away private keys and gas management, it allows for features like social recovery, session keys, and gas sponsorship. For example, applications built with the Alchemy AA SDK can achieve user onboarding times under 30 seconds, a critical metric for mainstream adoption, by leveraging its high-reliability bundler infrastructure which processes millions of UserOperations.
LABS
Comparisons
Alchemy's Bundler API vs Infura's MEV Protection: Account Abstraction vs Transaction Shielding
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects. Alchemy offers a dedicated EIP-4337 bundler for user operations, enabling smart accounts. Infura provides generalized MEV protection for standard EOAs, shielding transactions. This analysis covers core paradigms, performance, and optimal use cases.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Paradigms for Advanced Transaction Handling
A technical breakdown of Alchemy's Account Abstraction-focused Bundler API versus Infura's MEV Protection suite, framing the choice between user experience and transaction security.
Infura's MEV Protection takes a different approach by focusing on transaction shielding within the traditional EOA (Externally Owned Account) model. Its strategy uses private transaction relays, like the Flashbots Protect RPC, to submit transactions directly to builders, minimizing front-running and sandwich attacks. This results in a trade-off: superior protection for high-value DeFi trades—where MEV can routinely extract 5-20+ basis points—but without the native smart account capabilities that redefine UX.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building a novel, user-friendly application with smart accounts, session keys, or gasless transactions, choose Alchemy's Bundler API. If you prioritize securing high-value, traditional EOA transactions in DeFi protocols like Uniswap or Aave against predatory MEV, choose Infura's MEV Protection.
tldr-summary
Alchemy's Bundler API vs Infura's MEV Protection
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Alchemy focuses on enabling next-gen UX via ERC-4337, while Infura prioritizes securing existing transactions.
01
Alchemy: Future-Proof AA Infrastructure
Bundler API for ERC-4337: Provides a managed, high-reliability endpoint for submitting UserOperations. This matters for protocols building smart accounts, gas sponsorship (Paymasters), and session keys. It's the backbone for dApps like Pimlico and Biconomy.
>99.9%
Bundler Uptime
02
Alchemy: Developer Velocity
Deep Stack Integration: Bundler API works seamlessly with Alchemy's Enhanced APIs, Notify webhooks, and SDKs. This matters for teams that want a single provider for RPC, indexing, and AA, reducing integration complexity and accelerating time-to-market for social recovery wallets and batched transactions.
03
Infura: MEV Shielding for DeFi & Traders
RPC-Level Transaction Protection: Uses techniques like private transaction pools and fair sequencing to shield users from front-running and sandwich attacks. This matters for high-value DeFi trades, NFT mints, and arbitrage bots where minimizing extractable value is critical.
~$1.3B
TVL Protected (Est.)
04
Infura: Security for Existing Patterns
Transparent EOA Protection: Works with standard Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) and popular wallets like MetaMask. No need for users to adopt new standards. This matters for enterprise applications, institutional traders, and protocols that cannot mandate user migration to smart accounts.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Alchemy Bundler API vs Infura MEV Protection
Direct comparison of infrastructure services for Account Abstraction (AA) and transaction security.
| Metric / Feature | Alchemy Bundler API | Infura MEV Protection |
|---|---|---|
Primary Use Case | Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) Bundling | Transaction Shielding & Privacy |
Supported Chains | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base | Ethereum Mainnet |
MEV Protection Guarantee | ||
Avg. UserOp Bundle Latency | < 2 seconds | Not Applicable |
Avg. Tx Inclusion Time (Protected) | Not Applicable | ~12 seconds |
Pricing Model | Pay-as-you-go per UserOp | Subscription tier (e.g., Growth Plan) |
Smart Account Wallet Support | All ERC-4337 (e.g., Safe, Biconomy) | Any EOA or Smart Contract |
RPC Method Namespace | eth_sendUserOperation | eth_sendPrivateTransaction |
pros-cons-a
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION VS TRANSACTION SHIELDING
Alchemy Bundler API vs Infura MEV Protection
Comparing two distinct approaches to improving the user and developer experience on Ethereum: one enabling smart contract wallets, the other hardening standard transactions.
02
Alchemy: Developer Velocity
Rapid prototyping: Abstracts the complexity of running a bundler node. Offers a unified API for UserOperations with <2 second latency and >99.9% reliability. This matters for teams that need to launch AA features quickly without managing infrastructure, like those using Safe{Wallet} or ZeroDev SDKs.
>99.9%
Reliability
<2s
Typical Latency
04
Infura: Defense-in-Depth for EOAs
No protocol upgrade required: Works with existing wallets (MetaMask, Rabby) and dApps. Provides a simple RPC flag ("mevProtection": true) to activate. This matters for projects that need to protect users immediately without requiring them to migrate to a new smart contract wallet standard.
1.2M+
Protected Tx/Day (Est.)
05
Choose Alchemy Bundler API If...
You are building the next generation of wallet UX. Your primary goal is enabling:
- Gasless onboarding via paymasters.
- Batch transactions (e.g., approve & swap in one click).
- Account recovery and programmable security rules. Ideal for: Consumer dApps, gaming platforms, and any project prioritizing user onboarding overhauls.
06
Choose Infura MEV Protection If...
You need to protect existing users now. Your priority is securing high-value transactions from today's most common threats without changing your app's architecture. Ideal for: DEX aggregators, lending protocols, NFT platforms, and teams with a large existing EOA user base that cannot immediately migrate to smart contract wallets.
pros-cons-b
Alchemy's Bundler API vs. Infura's MEV Protection
Infura MEV Protection: Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of two distinct approaches to mitigating MEV: Account Abstraction via ERC-4337 vs. direct transaction shielding. Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Alchemy Bundler API: Protocol-Level Defense
Native ERC-4337 Integration: Enables smart contract wallets (like Safe) to submit UserOperations, which are inherently harder to frontrun than standard EOAs. This matters for protocols building on EIP-4337 standards (e.g., Biconomy, ZeroDev) who need future-proof, composable account abstraction.
Developer Ecosystem: Leverages Alchemy's existing AA SDK and supports Paymasters for gas sponsorship, crucial for dApps aiming for seamless user onboarding.
02
Alchemy Bundler API: Flexibility & Control
Custom Bundling Logic: Developers can implement their own bundling strategies or use Alchemy's optimized bundler, offering control over transaction ordering for complex DeFi operations. This matters for high-frequency trading protocols or NFT marketplaces with specific execution requirements.
Multi-Chain Support: Available on Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism, providing a consistent AA experience across the major L2 ecosystem.
03
Infura MEV Protection: Immediate Shielding
Direct RPC Integration: Provides MEV protection as a service at the RPC layer for standard EOA transactions, requiring no smart contract wallet migration. This matters for existing dApps with large EOA user bases (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) who need an immediate, drop-in solution without protocol changes.
Proven Reduction: Publicly states it has protected over $2B in transaction value from sandwich attacks, a verifiable metric for risk-averse treasury managers.
04
Infura MEV Protection: Simplicity & Coverage
Zero-Config for Users: End-users get protection simply by using an Infura-powered dApp, with no need to understand AA. This matters for mass-market consumer applications where UX simplicity is paramount.
Broad Transaction Coverage: Protects against sandwich attacks and frontrunning on simple swaps and transfers, covering the most common MEV vectors for retail users.
05
Key Trade-off: Architectural Commitment
Alchemy (AA Path): Requires adopting the ERC-4337 stack (Smart Accounts, Bundlers, Paymasters). This is a strategic, forward-looking commitment with higher initial complexity but greater long-term flexibility.
Infura (Shielding Path): A tactical, service-based wrapper for existing EOA transactions. Lower barrier to entry but does not enable the programmable benefits of account abstraction.
06
Key Trade-off: Cost & Control Model
Alchemy Model: Pay for Bundler API calls. Developers control and potentially monetize gas sponsorship via Paymasters. Operational cost is tied to UserOperation volume.
Infura Model: Protection is bundled into RPC service tiers. Simpler pricing but offers less fine-grained control over the protection mechanics. Cost is tied to overall RPC usage.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Alchemy's Bundler API for Account Abstraction
Verdict: The Essential Choice for ERC-4337. If your core priority is building with Account Abstraction (ERC-4337), Alchemy is the definitive leader. Its Bundler API is a fully managed, production-ready service that handles UserOperation bundling, gas estimation, and Paymaster integration. This removes the massive operational overhead of running your own bundler node. For protocols like Safe{Wallet}, Coinbase Smart Wallet, or ZeroDev, Alchemy provides the critical infrastructure for gas sponsorship, session keys, and batch transactions. The ecosystem tooling, including the Alchemy Account Kit SDK, accelerates development significantly.
Infura's MEV Protection for Account Abstraction
Verdict: A Secondary, Security-Focused Layer. Infura does not offer a native Bundler API. Its MEV Protection service is a transaction shielding tool that can be used in conjunction with an AA stack. For AA developers, it adds a frontrunning and sandwich attack mitigation layer for sensitive operations initiated by smart accounts. However, you must source your bundler infrastructure elsewhere (e.g., Stackup, Pimlico, or self-hosted). This adds complexity. Choose this path only if MEV resistance for your user's transactions is a non-negotiable, paramount concern that justifies a multi-provider setup.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on whether to prioritize user experience innovation or transaction security at the infrastructure layer.
Alchemy's Bundler API excels at enabling next-generation user experiences by providing a robust, high-performance entry point for ERC-4337 account abstraction. It offers a managed service with a 99.9%+ uptime SLA, handling the complexities of UserOperation bundling, gas sponsorship via Paymasters, and smart account management. For example, its integration with popular SDKs like aa-sdk and its role in powering major AA wallets like Biconomy and ZeroDev demonstrates its focus on developer velocity and scaling novel onboarding flows.
Infura's MEV Protection takes a different approach by focusing on transaction-level security for existing EOAs and smart contracts. This service, built on Flashbots' mev-share protocol, actively shields transactions from front-running and sandwich attacks by submitting them directly to builders. This results in a trade-off: while it provides critical protection for DeFi traders and arbitrage bots—reducing value extraction by an average of 50-80% on vulnerable swaps—it does not inherently enable the UX paradigm shifts (gasless tx, social recovery) that Account Abstraction offers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building novel user-centric applications (e.g., non-custodial wallets with social logins, subscription-based dApps, batch transactions) and you need a full-stack AA infrastructure, choose Alchemy's Bundler API. If you prioritize securing high-value, latency-sensitive transactions (e.g., DEX arbitrage, NFT minting, large token transfers) on existing wallets and contracts, and your primary threat model is MEV, choose Infura's MEV Protection. For maximum coverage, protocols like Uniswap and Aave increasingly leverage both: AA for UX and MEV protection for core swap execution.
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