Alchemy excels at providing granular, developer-controlled data privacy through its Supernode architecture. This design processes requests on dedicated, single-tenant infrastructure, significantly reducing the risk of cross-tenant data exposure. For teams building sensitive applications like private DeFi vaults or institutional trading platforms, this isolation is critical. Alchemy's commitment is further evidenced by its SOC 2 Type II certification, a rigorous audit of its security and privacy controls, providing a verifiable standard for enterprise clients.
Alchemy vs Infura: Data Privacy & Logging Policies
Introduction: Why RPC Data Privacy is a Critical Infrastructure Decision
A deep dive into how Alchemy and Infura's core data handling philosophies create distinct trade-offs for high-stakes applications.
Infura takes a different approach by prioritizing scalability and network resilience through its multi-tenant infrastructure. This shared-resource model allows Infura to serve massive scale—processing billions of requests monthly—and maintain industry-leading uptime, as seen in its public status page. The trade-off is a reduced ability to offer the same level of infrastructural isolation. While Infura has robust data protection policies and does not sell user data, its logging for operational purposes is more extensive by default, requiring developers to actively manage privacy settings.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum data sovereignty and verifiable isolation for compliance-sensitive or high-value transactions, choose Alchemy. Its dedicated infrastructure model is built for this. If you prioritize proven, hyper-scalable reliability for public-facing dApps where default logging is acceptable, choose Infura. Its battle-tested network handles Ethereum's peak loads, consistently delivering the 99.9%+ uptime that mainstream applications require.
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of how Alchemy and Infura handle your sensitive blockchain data. The choice impacts compliance, security, and control.
Choose Alchemy for Enhanced Privacy Controls
Enterprise-grade data isolation: Offers dedicated node deployments and private RPC endpoints, ensuring your application's traffic and logs are not co-mingled with other users. This is critical for high-volume DeFi protocols or institutional clients with strict data sovereignty requirements (e.g., GDPR, SOC2).
Choose Infura for Simplicity & Compliance
Clear, audited logging policies: Infura's data practices are transparently documented and designed for general-purpose dApp development. Their compliance with standards like GDPR simplifies onboarding for startups and projects that prioritize a straightforward, compliant service over deep customization.
Choose Alchemy for Customizable Log Retention
Granular control over logs: Alchemy provides configurable log retention periods and the ability to disable specific types of logging (e.g., request payloads). This matters for protocols handling sensitive user data who need to minimize their audit surface and adhere to internal data lifecycle policies.
Choose Infura for Standardized, Reliable Service
Battle-tested shared infrastructure: While using shared endpoints, Infura's scale and reliability are proven, supporting major projects like MetaMask and Uniswap. This is ideal for public-facing dApps where ultimate data isolation is less critical than proven, resilient uptime and network coverage.
Head-to-Head: Data Privacy & Logging Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of data handling, retention, and privacy controls for enterprise blockchain RPC providers.
| Metric / Feature | Alchemy | Infura |
|---|---|---|
IP Address Logging | ||
Default Log Retention Period | 7 days | 7 days |
Custom Log Retention (Enterprise) | ||
Data Anonymization (Standard Plan) | ||
GDPR & CCPA Compliance | ||
Private Transaction Routing | ||
Dedicated Endpoints (Isolated Traffic) |
Alchemy vs Infura: Data Privacy & Logging Policies
A technical breakdown of privacy controls, data retention, and compliance features for applications handling sensitive on-chain data.
Alchemy Pro: Enhanced Data Control
Granular privacy settings: Alchemy offers dedicated Enhanced APIs with configurable logging. You can disable request/response logging entirely for specific API keys, a critical feature for applications dealing with private transactions or proprietary trading strategies. This is enforced at the infrastructure level.
Alchemy Pro: SOC 2 Type II Compliance
Enterprise-grade audit trail: Alchemy is SOC 2 Type II certified, providing independently verified evidence of their security and privacy controls. This is a non-negotiable requirement for institutional clients (e.g., hedge funds, regulated DeFi protocols) and simplifies vendor due diligence processes.
Infura Pro: Transparent Data Policy
Clear data retention windows: Infura's public data policy explicitly states a 7-day retention period for IP addresses and request data, after which it is deleted. This predictable, time-bound policy is valuable for teams requiring strict data lifecycle management.
Infura Pro: ConsenSys Audit & Ecosystem Integration
Vetted by a major entity: As a ConsenSys product, Infura's infrastructure undergoes internal security audits aligned with MetaMask and other ecosystem standards. For teams already embedded in the ConsenSys stack (using Truffle, MetaMask SDK), this reduces integration complexity and trust surface.
Alchemy Con: Potential for Higher Cost
Advanced privacy at a premium: The most stringent privacy features (like zero-logging APIs) are typically part of Alchemy's Growth and Enterprise tiers. For startups or projects with high request volumes, this can lead to significantly higher costs compared to base-tier offerings from competitors.
Infura Con: Default Logging & Limited Granularity
Opt-out model for IP logging: By default, Infura logs IP addresses and request data. Disabling this requires manual configuration per API key and may not be as comprehensively isolated as dedicated private endpoints. This presents a higher initial privacy risk for uninformed teams.
Infura: Pros and Cons for Data-Sensitive Applications
A data-driven comparison of privacy controls and logging policies for applications handling sensitive on-chain data.
Infura Pro: Enterprise-Grade Compliance
Formal Data Processing Agreements (DPAs): Infura offers legally binding DPAs for enterprise clients, crucial for GDPR and CCPA compliance. This matters for regulated DeFi protocols or institutional clients who must demonstrate formal data handling procedures to auditors and regulators.
Infura Pro: Transparent Logging Policy
Publicly documented data retention: Infura clearly states it retains request logs for 7 days for debugging, after which they are aggregated and anonymized. This matters for teams that need predictable audit trails and want to avoid indefinite, opaque data storage by their RPC provider.
Infura Con: Mandatory IP Logging
IP addresses are logged by default: Unlike some competitors, Infura's policy explicitly states that client IP addresses are collected. This matters for privacy-first dApps or mixer protocols where user anonymity is a core feature and IP leakage is a critical threat vector.
Infura Con: Limited Customization for Self-Hosting
No self-hosted option: You cannot run Infura's stack in your own VPC. All traffic routes through their centralized endpoints. This matters for high-security applications in finance or government that require data to never leave a private network, forcing a choice between Infura or a self-hosted alternative like Chainstack or Besu.
Alchemy Pro: Enhanced Privacy via Enhanced APIs
Privacy-focused data access patterns: Alchemy's transact and debug APIs allow fetching complex data in single calls, reducing the metadata footprint vs. multiple standard JSON-RPC calls. This matters for high-frequency trading bots and analytics dashboards that need rich data with fewer observable requests.
Alchemy Con: Less Explicit Enterprise DPA Focus
DPAs are negotiable but not standard: While available, formal Data Processing Agreements are not as prominently featured as part of Alchemy's core offering. This matters for large enterprises or public companies where procurement requires a standardized, easily accessible compliance package from day one.
Decision Framework: When to Choose Alchemy vs Infura
Alchemy for Enterprises
Verdict: The clear choice for regulated or sensitive workloads. Strengths:
- Data Sovereignty: Alchemy offers dedicated, single-tenant nodes with full data isolation, a requirement for financial institutions and large enterprises.
- Audit Logging: Provides comprehensive, immutable audit trails for all RPC calls, essential for SOC 2 Type II compliance and internal security reviews.
- No Data Sharing: Explicit policy against selling or sharing customer usage data for advertising or training models. Considerations: Premium pricing for dedicated infrastructure and advanced logging features.
Infura for Enterprises
Verdict: Suitable for general enterprise use with strong baseline policies. Strengths:
- Consensys Ecosystem: Benefits from the security-first ethos of its parent company, with clear, published data handling policies.
- IP Allowlisting & Rate Limits: Robust access controls to secure endpoints. Weaknesses:
- Multi-Tenant Default: Base services are shared infrastructure; dedicated nodes are an enterprise-tier offering.
- Aggregate Analytics: Reserves the right to use anonymized, aggregate data for service improvement, which may not meet strict internal data governance policies.
Frequently Asked Questions on RPC Data Privacy
Direct comparisons of data handling, logging policies, and privacy controls for two leading blockchain node providers.
Infura logs more identifiable user data by default. Their privacy policy states they collect IP addresses, wallet addresses, and request metadata. Alchemy's core logging is more limited, focusing on aggregate performance metrics. However, both providers offer enhanced privacy features through paid enterprise plans, which can include data minimization and custom retention policies.
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Alchemy and Infura hinges on your application's specific privacy requirements and tolerance for data logging.
Alchemy excels at providing granular control over data retention and auditability. Its Enhanced APIs and Webhook systems offer detailed logs for debugging and compliance, which is critical for high-value DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3 that require forensic transaction analysis. For example, Alchemy's Notify product provides real-time, customizable alerts on specific on-chain events, creating a detailed, queryable log of activity tied to your application's smart contracts.
Infura takes a different approach by prioritizing user privacy through its Data Privacy Addendum (DPA), which explicitly limits data processing and sharing. This strategy results in a trade-off: while it offers stronger contractual privacy guarantees aligned with GDPR principles, it provides less granular, application-specific logging out-of-the-box compared to Alchemy. Infura's logging is more focused on service performance and aggregate metrics.
The key trade-off: If your priority is compliance, regulatory adherence, and minimizing data footprint (e.g., for enterprise or privacy-focused dApps), choose Infura for its strong contractual DPA. If you prioritize deep observability, debugging complex transactions, and building with detailed event-driven architectures, choose Alchemy for its superior logging tools and Enhanced APIs. For most teams, the decision maps directly to their risk profile: regulated entities lean Infura, while high-throughput DeFi and NFT platforms benefit from Alchemy's transparency.
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.