Infura excels at broad, stable multi-chain access because of its first-mover advantage and deep integration with the Ethereum ecosystem. For example, its infrastructure powers critical protocols like MetaMask and Uniswap, handling a significant portion of Ethereum's RPC traffic. Its strength lies in providing a reliable, battle-tested gateway for developers who need consistent uptime across a wide array of supported chains, including Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum.
LABS
Comparisons
Infura (Multi-chain) vs Alchemy (Multi-chain)
A technical comparison of the two leading generalist RPC providers, analyzing core services, developer tooling, and ecosystem reach for engineering leaders making infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Web3 Infrastructure Dominance
A data-driven comparison of Infura and Alchemy, the two titans of multi-chain node infrastructure.
Alchemy takes a different approach by focusing on developer experience and performance optimization. This results in a suite of enhanced APIs like the alchemy_getTokenBalances and superior debugging tools, which can lead to faster iteration cycles. Their Supernode architecture is engineered for higher reliability and speed, a trade-off that historically came with a higher price point but is now more competitive following recent pricing adjustments from both providers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proven stability, extensive chain coverage, and integration with the broadest ecosystem of existing tools, choose Infura. If you prioritize maximizing performance, advanced developer tooling, and deeper analytics for complex dApps on primary chains like Ethereum, Polygon, and Solana, choose Alchemy.
tldr-summary
Infura vs Alchemy
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core strengths for two leading multi-chain RPC providers.
01
Infura: Enterprise Reliability
Proven infrastructure with 99.9%+ uptime SLA, trusted by protocols like Uniswap and MakerDAO. This matters for mission-critical production dApps where downtime equals lost revenue.
02
Infura: Multi-Chain Breadth
Extensive network support (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, 15+ others). This matters for teams building across multiple ecosystems who want a single provider dashboard.
03
Alchemy: Superior Developer Experience
Advanced APIs & tooling like Enhanced APIs, Webhooks, and the NFT API power top protocols like OpenSea and Aave. This matters for teams needing rich data and real-time notifications beyond basic JSON-RPC.
04
Alchemy: Performance & Data Depth
Optimized node performance with faster response times and comprehensive data access (e.g., transaction tracing, historical logs). This matters for high-frequency trading bots, complex analytics, and data-intensive applications.
05
Infura: Cons (Trade-offs)
Rate limiting on free tier can be restrictive. Advanced data features (like trace calls) are less prominent than Alchemy's suite. This matters for rapidly scaling startups or projects requiring deep chain data who may hit limits.
06
Alchemy: Cons (Trade-offs)
Pricing complexity with pay-as-you-go models can be less predictable than Infura's tiered plans. Primary focus on Ethereum & major L2s, with slightly less emphasis on very long-tail chains. This matters for teams with strict budget forecasting or building on niche networks.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Core Services & Technical Specs
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Infura and Alchemy.
| Metric | Infura | Alchemy |
|---|---|---|
Free Tier Daily Requests | 100,000 | 300 million |
Enhanced APIs (NFT, Transfers) | ||
Multi-chain Support (EVM) | 20+ chains | 20+ chains |
WebSocket Connections | ||
Archive Data Access | Add-on | Included in all tiers |
Max Throughput (req/sec) | Unpublished | Unpublished |
Time to First Byte (P95) | < 100 ms | < 50 ms |
Developer SDKs | Ethers.js, Web3.js | Alchemy SDK, Ethers.js, Web3.js |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Infura vs Alchemy: Key Differentiators
A data-driven comparison of the two dominant multi-chain RPC providers, highlighting core strengths and trade-offs for enterprise decision-making.
01
Infura's Core Strength: Enterprise-Grade Reliability
Proven infrastructure with a 99.9%+ SLA and over 5 years of mainnet operation. This matters for mission-critical dApps (e.g., Uniswap, Compound) requiring maximum uptime and a battle-tested network. Offers dedicated, isolated endpoints for high-volume applications.
02
Infura's Key Limitation: Centralization & Censorship Risk
Single-point-of-failure architecture owned by ConsenSys. Historical incidents include regional outages and API key blacklisting (e.g., 2020 Iran/Venezuela block). This matters for decentralization-purist protocols or applications needing maximum censorship resistance.
03
Alchemy's Core Strength: Developer Experience & Advanced APIs
Superior tooling with enhanced APIs like alchemy_getAssetTransfers and WebSocket reliability. Powers 70%+ of top Ethereum dApps by traffic. This matters for teams building complex products (e.g., NFT platforms like OpenSea, DEX aggregators) needing rich data and real-time updates.
04
Alchemy's Key Limitation: Cost Structure for Scale
Pricing can scale aggressively with high request volumes and specialized API calls (e.g., Transfers API). While the free tier is generous, enterprise plans require careful capacity planning. This matters for bootstrapped projects or high-TPS applications where predictable, linear cost is a priority.
pros-cons-b
Infura vs Alchemy
Alchemy: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for the two leading multi-chain node providers at a glance.
01
Alchemy: Superior Developer Experience
Specific advantage: Enhanced APIs like alchemy_getTokenBalances and alchemy_getAssetTransfers. This matters for teams building complex dApps (e.g., NFT marketplaces, DeFi dashboards) that require rich, indexed data without managing their own infrastructure.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
Infura: Broader Chain Support
Specific advantage: Supports 15+ networks including Filecoin, Polygon zkEVM, and Optimism. This matters for CTOs managing multi-chain deployments who require a single, unified API endpoint for diverse ecosystems beyond just EVM chains.
15+
Networks
04
Infura: Proven Enterprise Scale
Specific advantage: Consistently handles >100B requests per day, backed by ConsenSys. This matters for VPs of Engineering at large-scale protocols (e.g., MetaMask, Uniswap) where proven, battle-tested reliability and massive throughput are non-negotiable.
100B+
Daily Requests
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Platform
Infura for DeFi
Verdict: The reliable, battle-tested choice for established protocols. Strengths: Proven uptime and stability for high-value applications like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. Offers robust WebSocket support for real-time mempool monitoring and transaction tracking. Strong enterprise SLAs and SOC2 compliance are critical for institutional DeFi. Considerations: Can be more expensive at scale for high-RPC-call applications. Rate limiting on lower-tier plans can be a bottleneck for aggressive trading bots.
Alchemy for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for data-intensive, high-throughput DeFi applications.
Strengths: Unmatched Enhanced APIs like alchemy_getTokenBalances and alchemy_getAssetTransfers drastically reduce the need for complex, multi-call indexing. The Notify suite provides webhooks for mined/dropped transactions and specific event logs, enabling more responsive systems. Better free tier and predictable pricing for high-volume projects.
Considerations: While stable, has a shorter operational history than Infura for the absolute largest TVL protocols.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Performance
A data-driven analysis of Infura and Alchemy's core architectures, performance benchmarks, and operational trade-offs for engineering leaders.
Yes, Alchemy generally demonstrates superior raw performance and reliability metrics. Benchmarks show Alchemy's Supernode architecture achieves higher requests per second (RPS) and lower latency, particularly during network congestion. This is due to its proprietary transaction propagation and mempool optimization. Infura, while highly reliable, uses a more generalized multi-tenant architecture that can exhibit higher variance in response times under extreme load. For applications requiring the highest throughput and lowest latency, Alchemy often has the edge.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure choice between two multi-chain powerhouses.
Infura excels at providing a stable, enterprise-grade foundation with a proven track record of reliability. Its deep integration with the ConsenSys ecosystem (MetaMask, Truffle) and robust Ethereum-first architecture offers predictable performance for established protocols. For example, its 99.9%+ SLA and long-standing role as a core Ethereum infrastructure provider make it a low-risk choice for applications where uptime is non-negotiable.
Alchemy takes a different approach by prioritizing developer experience and advanced data capabilities. This results in a platform optimized for rapid iteration and deeper insights, featuring tools like Enhanced APIs, the NFT API, and Webhooks. This developer-centric strategy, combined with aggressive multi-chain expansion, makes it a powerhouse for teams building complex, data-intensive dApps that require more than basic RPC calls.
The key trade-off: If your priority is enterprise stability, deep Ethereum integration, and a conservative, battle-tested stack, choose Infura. If you prioritize developer velocity, advanced data tooling (NFTs, analytics), and a platform built for scaling innovative multi-chain applications, choose Alchemy. For projects with a tight focus on Ethereum mainnet and a need for maximum reliability, Infura's maturity is compelling. For teams building across Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism with a need for sophisticated data pipelines, Alchemy's feature set provides a significant edge.
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