Tenderly's RPC with Pre-Execution State Diffs excels at providing forensic-level transaction analysis by simulating and storing the complete state of the blockchain before and after each transaction. This allows developers to inspect the exact storage changes, internal calls, and variable states that led to a failure. For example, when debugging a failed Uniswap V3 swap, Tenderly can show the precise pool reserves and tick states at the moment of execution, a level of detail standard RPCs cannot provide.
LABS
Comparisons
RPC with Pre-Execution State Diff (Tenderly) vs RPC with Only Receipts: Debugging Depth
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects evaluating RPC providers based on debugging capabilities, data depth, and cost for complex dApp development and monitoring.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Debugging Data Divide
Choosing an RPC provider for debugging is a fundamental architectural decision that determines the depth of insight you can achieve into on-chain transactions.
Standard RPCs offering only transaction receipts take a different approach by providing the minimal, verifiable proof of execution—status, gas used, and logs. This strategy results in a trade-off: extreme reliability and performance for live applications, as seen with providers like Alchemy and Infura handling thousands of requests per second, but a lack of context for why a transaction succeeded or failed. You get the 'what' but not the 'how'.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deep, iterative debugging, smart contract auditing, or building complex transaction simulations, choose Tenderly. Its state-diff engine is indispensable for protocols like Aave or Compound where understanding liquidations is critical. If you prioritize high-throughput production reliability, lower cost per request, and need only confirmation of success/failure, a standard high-performance RPC is the optimal choice for your dApp's core infrastructure.
tldr-summary
RPC with Pre-Execution State Diff (Tenderly) vs RPC with Only Receipts
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of debugging capabilities for protocol architects and engineering leaders.
03
Standard RPC: Cost-Effective & Simple
Lower infrastructure overhead using standard eth_getTransactionReceipt calls. This matters for high-volume dApps (e.g., NFT marketplaces, wallets) that need fast, reliable confirmation data without the complexity and cost of full state replay.
04
Standard RPC: Universal Compatibility
Native support across all EVM chains and clients (Geth, Erigon, Nethermind). This matters for multi-chain protocols and infrastructure providers who require a single, reliable interface for basic transaction lifecycle monitoring across diverse environments.
RPC WITH PRE-EXECUTION STATE DIFF (TENDERLY) VS RPC WITH ONLY RECEIPTS
Feature Comparison: Data Depth & Capabilities
Direct comparison of debugging and data access capabilities for blockchain developers.
| Metric / Feature | RPC with Pre-Execution State Diff (Tenderly) | Standard RPC (Receipts Only) |
|---|---|---|
Pre-Execution State Access | ||
Step-by-Step Transaction Debugging | ||
State Diffs (Before/After) | ||
Gas Profiling per Opcode | ||
Historical Data Retention | Full archive + forks | Configurable (often limited) |
Simulation & Forking API | ||
Time to Debug Complex TX | < 2 seconds | Manual reconstruction required |
pros-cons-a
DEBUGGING DEPTH COMPARISON
RPC with Pre-Execution State Diffs (Tenderly): Pros & Cons
Choosing the right debugging RPC is a critical infrastructure decision. This comparison pits Tenderly's state-diff approach against standard receipt-only RPCs, highlighting the trade-offs between development velocity and operational simplicity.
02
Tenderly: Simulated Forking & Replay
Specific advantage: Enables deterministic replay of any transaction on a forked network. This matters for incident post-mortems and pre-deployment testing, allowing teams to test fixes against the exact state that caused a bug, a capability missing from standard RPCs.
Mainnet Fork
Simulation Environment
03
Standard RPC: Lower Latency & Cost
Specific advantage: Returns only transaction receipts and logs, resulting in < 100ms response times and lower infrastructure overhead. This matters for high-frequency dApps (e.g., DEX aggregators, prediction markets) where RPC performance is critical for user experience and cost-efficiency.
< 100ms
Typical Response
04
Standard RPC: Simpler Architecture
Specific advantage: Uses the native eth_getTransactionReceipt endpoint, requiring no specialized indexers or state reconciliation. This matters for teams prioritizing infrastructure simplicity and vendor lock-in avoidance, as they can easily switch between providers like Alchemy, Infura, or Chainstack.
pros-cons-b
Debugging Depth: Tenderly vs Standard RPC
Standard RPC with Only Receipts: Pros & Cons
A direct comparison of debugging capabilities between enriched RPCs with state diffs and standard JSON-RPC endpoints.
01
Tenderly RPC: Deep Debugging
Provides full pre-execution state diffs: Shows the exact state of all contracts (storage, balances) before and after each transaction. This is critical for smart contract developers debugging complex reverts, analyzing MEV, or auditing protocol interactions. Tools like Hardhat and Foundry can integrate with this data for superior local simulation.
02
Tenderly RPC: Performance & Cost
Higher latency and cost: Processing and storing full state traces adds overhead. This matters for high-frequency applications like DEX arbitrage bots or real-time dashboards where sub-second response is non-negotiable. The enriched data is valuable but not free.
03
Standard RPC: Speed & Reliability
Optimized for raw transaction throughput: Standard endpoints (e.g., Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode) focus on eth_getTransactionReceipt and eth_getLogs. This delivers 99.9%+ uptime and <100ms latency, which is essential for production dApps, wallet providers, and indexers that prioritize speed over forensic detail.
04
Standard RPC: Limited Forensic Data
Only provides transaction outcomes (receipts and logs): Missing internal calls and state changes. This is a major limitation for protocol security teams investigating exploits or DeFi analysts needing to reconstruct the precise steps of a failed flash loan. You must rely on external services for deep analysis.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: Decision by Use Case
RPC with Pre-Execution State Diff (Tenderly)
Verdict: The definitive choice for deep debugging and forensics. Strengths: Provides a full execution trace and the exact state of the EVM (storage, memory, stack) at every opcode. This is critical for debugging complex, multi-contract interactions in DeFi (e.g., MEV sandwich attacks, flash loan failures) or identifying subtle reentrancy bugs. Tools like Tenderly Debugger and Hardhat's stack traces rely on this depth. Key Metric: Enables step-by-step debugging, gas profiling, and state diffs for every transaction.
RPC with Only Receipts (Standard RPC)
Verdict: Inadequate for root-cause analysis.
Limitations: Only returns success/failure status, gas used, and logs. You cannot see why a transaction failed internally, what the contract state was, or which specific require() statement reverted. Debugging becomes a guessing game, forcing reliance on external block explorers or redeploying with extensive console logs.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Decision Framework
Choosing between pre-execution state diffs and receipt-only RPCs is a decision between debugging depth and operational simplicity.
Tenderly's RPC with Pre-Execution State Diff excels at forensic debugging because it provides a complete, step-by-step view of the EVM's internal state before a transaction executes. For example, developers can inspect the exact storage slot values, contract balances, and intermediate call results that led to a failed DeFi swap on Uniswap or a reverted NFT mint, reducing mean time to resolution (MTTR) from hours to minutes. This is powered by simulating transactions in a forked environment, capturing every state change.
Standard RPC endpoints (e.g., Alchemy, QuickNode) with Only Receipts take a different approach by providing the final, on-chain outcome—transaction status, gas used, and event logs. This results in a significant trade-off: extreme reliability and performance for production applications (99.9%+ SLA, sub-100ms latency) but limited visibility into why a transaction succeeded or failed. You get the what, but not the how, making it optimal for high-throughput dApp frontends and indexers.
The key trade-off is depth versus speed and cost. If your priority is developer velocity and complex debugging—building intricate smart contracts for protocols like Aave or debugging mainnet forks—choose Tenderly. If you prioritize production reliability, low-latency queries, and cost-efficiency for user-facing applications, a standard high-performance RPC is the superior choice. For a robust stack, many teams use both: a standard RPC for live traffic and Tenderly's debug API as a specialized diagnostic tool.
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