Figment excels at providing protocol-specific, deep-dive audits because its business model is built on institutional staking and validation services. For example, their audit reports for networks like Cosmos and Solana often include detailed analyses of slashing conditions, governance attack vectors, and validator client vulnerabilities, which are critical for managing multi-million dollar staked positions. This focus stems from their core competency in Proof-of-Stake infrastructure.
LABS
Comparisons
Figment vs Alchemy: Institutional-Grade Security Audits
A technical analysis comparing the security audit posture of Figment and Alchemy, focusing on auditor reputation, audit frequency, and public disclosure for institutional clients.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Why Security Audits Are Non-Negotiable for Institutions
A data-driven comparison of Figment and Alchemy's security audit approaches for institutional blockchain infrastructure.
Alchemy takes a different approach by prioritizing scalable, application-layer security and infrastructure resilience. Their security posture is demonstrated by a 99.99%+ historical uptime SLA and integrations with tools like OpenZeppelin Defender for smart contract monitoring. This results in a trade-off: less emphasis on novel consensus-layer risks, but superior robustness for high-throughput dApps handling sensitive user data or assets on Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum.
The key trade-off: If your priority is securing capital-intensive, chain-native operations like staking or cross-chain bridging, choose Figment for its validator-centric audit depth. If you prioritize bulletproof reliability and smart contract security for a high-traffic consumer application, choose Alchemy for its battle-tested infrastructure and developer security suite.
tldr-summary
Figment vs Alchemy: Institutional-Grade Security Audits
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of security postures for CTOs and architects managing high-value assets.
01
Figment: Specialized Staking & Governance
Core competency in Proof-of-Stake: Deep protocol-level expertise for chains like Ethereum, Cosmos, and Solana. This matters for institutions running validators or participating in on-chain governance, where slashing risk is critical. Their audit reports often cover consensus participation and key management.
02
Figment: Enterprise SLAs & Dedicated Infrastructure
Guaranteed uptime and direct support: Offers formal Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with financial penalties and dedicated, isolated node clusters. This matters for regulated entities (banks, funds) requiring contractual assurances for reliability and data sovereignty beyond standard API tiers.
03
Alchemy: Smart Contract & dApp Security
Full-stack application layer focus: Audits span from RPC endpoint security to smart contract interaction patterns and frontend vulnerabilities. This matters for protocol teams and dApp developers building on EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon) who need to secure user funds and contract logic.
04
Alchemy: Scale & Automation via Supernode
Architected for massive throughput: Their "Supernode" infrastructure is built for handling billions of requests with consistent latency. This matters for high-traffic consumer applications (NFT platforms, DeFi frontends) where performance under load is a primary security concern to prevent front-running and failed transactions.
FIGMENT VS ALCHEMY: INSTITUTIONAL-GRADE SECURITY AUDITS
Security Audit Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key security audit features for enterprise blockchain infrastructure providers.
| Security & Audit Feature | Figment | Alchemy |
|---|---|---|
SOC 2 Type II Certification | ||
Penetration Testing Frequency | Quarterly | Continuous |
Third-Party Audit Partners | Halborn, Quantstamp | Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin |
Real-Time Threat Monitoring | ||
Private RPC Endpoint SLA | 99.9% | 99.95% |
Data Encryption at Rest | AES-256 | AES-256 |
Audit Report Access | Upon Request | Self-Serve Dashboard |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS
Figment vs Alchemy: Institutional-Grade Security Audits
A data-driven comparison of security postures for CTOs managing high-value assets and compliance requirements.
01
Figment's Pro: Specialized Proof-of-Stake Governance
Deep protocol-level security integration: Figment's core business is staking and governance across 40+ PoS networks (e.g., Cosmos, Solana, Polygon). This provides first-hand, non-custodial slashing protection and direct relationships with core devs for security advisories. This matters for institutions running validators or managing treasury in PoS ecosystems.
02
Figment's Pro: Dedicated Institutional SLAs
Contractual security guarantees: Offers formal Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with financial penalties for uptime (99.9%+), slashing protection, and governance participation. Provides dedicated security engineers and 24/7 incident response. This matters for hedge funds and custodians requiring contractual recourse and a named point of contact for security events.
03
Figment's Con: Narrower EVM & Smart Contract Focus
Less emphasis on application-layer tooling: While strong on consensus security, Figment's DataHub API has fewer dedicated security features for smart contract developers compared to Alchemy's suite. Tools like Alchemy's Mempool Inspector, Webhook-based monitoring, and enhanced transaction tracing are more developed for dApp security auditing. This matters for protocols needing deep EVM debugging and real-time threat detection.
04
Figment's Con: Smaller Ecosystem & Integration Surface
Reduced third-party audit visibility: Integrates with fewer mainstream security platforms (e.g., Forta, OpenZeppelin Defender) directly compared to Alchemy's vast partner network. This can create additional integration overhead for a full-stack security monitoring system. This matters for teams wanting a pre-vetted, plug-and-play security toolchain from their node provider.
05
Alchemy's Pro: Comprehensive Smart Contract Security Suite
Built-for-devs application security toolkit: Offers Alchemy Monitor for real-time anomaly detection, enhanced APIs for simulating attacks, and seamless integration with Forta and Tenderly for automated threat response. Processes over $105B+ in on-chain transaction volume, providing vast attack surface data. This matters for DeFi protocols and NFT platforms needing to audit and harden smart contract interactions.
06
Alchemy's Pro: Enterprise-Grade Infrastructure Security
Battle-tested, multi-cloud redundancy: Runs on AWS, Google Cloud, and private data centers with geo-redundancy. Proven reliability serving top-tier clients like OpenSea and 0x. Provides DDoS protection, private endpoints, and role-based access control (RBAC) out-of-the-box. This matters for institutions where infrastructure uptime and network-layer security are non-negotiable.
pros-cons-b
FIGMENT VS ALCHEMY: SECURITY AUDIT COMPARISON
Alchemy: Pros and Cons for Institutional Security
A data-driven breakdown of security postures for CTOs evaluating enterprise-grade blockchain infrastructure. Focused on audit depth, compliance, and operational resilience.
01
Alchemy: Pro - Deep Protocol & Infrastructure Audits
Comprehensive audit scope: Alchemy's security team conducts in-depth reviews of core node software (Geth, Erigon), RPC endpoints, and internal infrastructure, not just API layers. This matters for protocol-level risk mitigation where a bug in consensus logic or state management could be catastrophic.
100+
Audits Conducted
02
Alchemy: Pro - Real-Time Threat Detection & SLAs
Proactive monitoring with guarantees: Offers <100ms anomaly detection on API traffic and node health, backed by 99.9%+ uptime SLAs. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) and real-time settlement applications where latency and reliability are non-negotiable.
<100ms
Anomaly Detection
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
Alchemy: Con - Centralized Audit Control & Opacity
Black-box assessment model: Audit reports and penetration test findings are typically kept internal or shared under strict NDA. This matters for institutions requiring third-party validation (e.g., for SOC 2 Type II compliance) who need transparent, shareable audit trails for their own stakeholders.
04
Alchemy: Con - Limited Validator-Centric Security
Focus on API/Data Layer: Security audits are less focused on staking and validator operations compared to specialized staking providers. This matters for institutions running their own validators (e.g., for Ethereum, Solana) who need deep expertise in slashing prevention, key management, and consensus safety.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Provider
Figment for Security-First
Verdict: The definitive choice for regulated institutions and high-value assets. Strengths: Figment's core is built on a SOC 2 Type II certified infrastructure with dedicated, isolated validator nodes. Their security audits are conducted by top-tier firms like Trail of Bits and Quantstamp, with detailed, public reports. For protocols like Aave or Compound managing billions in TVL, this institutional-grade, compliance-focused approach is non-negotiable. Their DataHub platform provides granular access controls and audit trails.
Alchemy for Security-First
Strengths: Alchemy offers robust, enterprise-grade security with SOC 2 Type II compliance and ISO 27001 certification. Their security model is built for scale, protecting massive applications like OpenSea and MetaMask. While their audit reports are typically private, their battle-tested infrastructure and real-time threat monitoring provide strong operational security for high-throughput dApps.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Figment and Alchemy for institutional-grade security audits depends on prioritizing proactive, protocol-level assurance versus comprehensive, application-layer defense.
Figment excels at deep, proactive protocol-level security due to its core business model of running validators. Its DataHub infrastructure is hardened through direct participation in consensus for over 40 networks, including Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos. This provides first-hand, battle-tested insights into slashing conditions, governance attacks, and network upgrades. For example, their audit of a new L1's staking module leveraged real-world data from validating billions in TVL, identifying economic vulnerabilities a pure code review might miss.
Alchemy takes a different approach by focusing on comprehensive, application-layer security and monitoring. Its Supernode infrastructure and Alchemy Monitor provide real-time threat detection for smart contract exploits, anomalous transaction patterns, and API abuse. This results in a trade-off: less emphasis on the base-layer consensus mechanics but superior defense for dApp frontends and user wallets. Their security suite is integrated with tools like Moralis and OpenZeppelin, creating a fortified environment for high-traffic DeFi and NFT platforms.
The key trade-off: If your priority is securing the protocol or staking infrastructure itself—especially for new L1s, L2s, or cross-chain bridges—choose Figment for its validator-native, economic security lens. If you prioritize protecting a high-value dApp and its users from application-layer exploits and ensuring 99.9%+ uptime, choose Alchemy for its integrated monitoring, alerting, and robust node infrastructure.
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