Alchemy excels at developer experience and advanced data access, powering its position as the market leader in Web3 development. Its robust suite of APIs—including the NFT API, Transfers API, and enhanced WebSockets—provides deep, real-time data that simplifies building complex dApps. This focus is reflected in its 99.9%+ service-level agreement (SLA) and its role as the backbone for major protocols like OpenSea, Aave, and 0x.
LABS
Comparisons
Alchemy vs Infura: Core RPC Provider Choice
A technical comparison of the two dominant RPC providers, analyzing developer APIs, reliability, ecosystem integration, and cost to help CTOs and technical leads make an informed infrastructure decision.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A data-driven comparison of the two dominant RPC providers, Alchemy and Infura, to inform your core infrastructure decision.
Infura takes a different approach by prioritizing broad, reliable Ethereum and IPFS access as part of the ConsenSys ecosystem. This results in a trade-off: while its core JSON-RPC service is battle-tested and trusted by giants like MetaMask and Uniswap, its advanced data tooling is less comprehensive than Alchemy's. Its strength lies in seamless integration with other ConsenSys tools like Truffle and MetaMask for a unified development workflow.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing developer velocity with superior data APIs and analytics, choose Alchemy. If you prioritize proven, reliable core RPC access within the broader Ethereum/ConsenSys stack, choose Infura. Your choice fundamentally shapes your team's toolchain and the depth of on-chain data readily available to your application.
tldr-summary
Alchemy vs Infura
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
Core strengths and trade-offs for the two dominant RPC providers at a glance.
01
Alchemy: Superior Developer Experience
Comprehensive tooling suite: Alchemy's Supernode API, enhanced APIs (NFT, Transfers), and robust debugging tools (Composer, Mempool Visualizer) create a unified platform. This matters for teams building complex dApps (like OpenSea, Aave) who want to minimize integration overhead and accelerate development.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
Infura: Breadth of Network Support
Extensive multi-chain access: Native support for 40+ networks, including Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, and many Layer 2s and appchains. This matters for projects deploying across a wide ecosystem or those who prioritize a single provider for all chain integrations to simplify operations.
40+
Networks
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Alchemy vs Infura
Direct comparison of core RPC provider metrics and features for CTOs and architects.
| Metric / Feature | Alchemy | Infura |
|---|---|---|
Guaranteed Uptime SLA | 99.9% | 99.9% |
Free Tier Requests/Month | 300M compute units | 250K requests |
Enhanced APIs (NFT, Transfers) | ||
WebSocket Connections | Unlimited | 5 concurrent |
Multi-Chain Support (EVM) | 20+ chains | 15+ chains |
Response Time (P95) | < 100ms | < 250ms |
On-Chain Notifications (Webhooks) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Alchemy vs Infura: Core RPC Provider Choice
A data-driven breakdown of the two leading RPC providers for Ethereum and EVM chains, highlighting key differentiators for CTOs and architects.
02
Alchemy's Key Strength: Performance & Reliability
Higher request throughput and cache layers: Benchmarks often show lower latency and higher success rates for complex calls. Their Enhanced APIs and Tracing API are optimized for performance. This matters for high-frequency applications like decentralized exchanges (e.g., Uniswap) and wallets requiring sub-second response times.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Infura's Key Strength: Enterprise Integration & Compliance
Stronger heritage in regulated environments: As a ConsenSys product, Infura has a longer track record with enterprise clients, offering dedicated nodes, advanced security audits, and compliance frameworks. This matters for institutional DeFi projects, banks, and enterprises with strict operational and regulatory requirements.
2016
Launched
05
Alchemy's Trade-off: Cost Complexity
Tiered pricing based on compute units (CUs): Complex calls (like debug_traceTransaction) consume more CUs, making cost prediction harder for data-intensive applications. This matters for analytics platforms (e.g., Dune Analytics) or on-chain indexing services that rely heavily on archival and tracing data.
06
Infura's Trade-off: Rate Limiting & Throughput
Stricter default rate limits and lower throughput caps: Free and growth tiers have more restrictive requests-per-second (RPS) limits compared to Alchemy's equivalents. Scaling requires explicit plan upgrades. This matters for high-traffic consumer dApps and social/gaming applications that experience sudden, viral demand spikes.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Alchemy vs Infura: Core RPC Provider Choice
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and architects making a foundational infrastructure decision.
02
Alchemy Pro: Advanced Data & Reliability
Higher Request Volume & Uptime: Handles over 200B compute units per month with a 99.9% SLA. Its proprietary Supernode architecture provides higher throughput and more reliable transaction propagation, critical for high-frequency trading bots and large-scale Web3 games.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
200B+
Monthly Compute
04
Infura Pro: Broad Chain Support
Extensive Multi-Chain Access: Provides easy RPC access to over 15+ networks (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, etc.) from a single dashboard. This simplifies operations for teams building cross-chain applications or managing deployments across multiple Layer 2s.
15+
Networks
05
Alchemy Con: Premium Pricing
Higher Cost at Scale: The advanced feature set comes at a premium. Growth and Enterprise plans can become expensive for projects with extremely high request volumes (>100M/month), making it less ideal for bootstrapped startups or applications with thin margins.
06
Infura Con: Rate Limiting & Centralization Risk
Stricter Default Limits & Single Point of Failure: Free tier has stricter rate limits (100k requests/day). Historically, service outages have caused widespread dApp downtime, highlighting the systemic risk of reliance on a centralized RPC provider for critical infrastructure.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Alchemy for Scale
Verdict: The enterprise standard for high-throughput, mission-critical applications. Strengths: Superior global node infrastructure with 99.9%+ SLA, advanced caching (Supernode), and dedicated support. Benchmarks show higher consistent TPS and lower latency under load for protocols like Aave and Uniswap. The Alchemy Notify webhook system provides real-time, reliable event monitoring. Trade-off: Premium pricing for dedicated tiers; overkill for simple prototypes.
Infura for Scale
Verdict: A robust, reliable choice with strong Ethereum Foundation backing. Strengths: Proven infrastructure powering MetaMask and major wallets. Offers a solid free tier and predictable growth path. Infura Transactions provides a simplified abstraction for sending transactions. Trade-off: Historically more susceptible to rate-limiting and service degradation during network congestion compared to Alchemy's architecture.
ALCHEMY VS INFURA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Performance
A data-driven comparison of the two leading RPC providers, analyzing their core infrastructure, performance metrics, and architectural trade-offs for enterprise-grade applications.
Alchemy demonstrates superior raw performance and lower latency in benchmark tests. Its proprietary Supernode architecture and mempool optimization deliver faster block propagation and transaction inclusion. For example, Alchemy's median response time for eth_getBlockByNumber is often sub-50ms, compared to Infura's typical 100-200ms range. However, for standard read operations, both providers offer sufficient speed for most dApps. The performance gap is most critical for high-frequency trading bots, NFT minting platforms, and real-time gaming applications where milliseconds matter.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your core infrastructure selection.
Alchemy excels at providing a robust, feature-rich developer platform for high-throughput applications. Its core strength is the Supernode architecture, which offers enhanced reliability, advanced data APIs (like alchemy_getTokenBalances), and superior WebSocket stability. For example, during peak NFT minting events, Alchemy's infrastructure is engineered to handle massive, spiky traffic, a key reason protocols like OpenSea and 0x rely on it. Its suite of tools, including the Mempool Visualizer and Enhanced APIs, provides a significant productivity boost for complex dApp development.
Infura takes a different approach by prioritizing broad, reliable access and seamless integration within the ConsenSys ecosystem. This results in a trade-off: while its core RPC service is highly stable and benefits from deep integration with MetaMask and Truffle, its advanced data offerings are less extensive than Alchemy's. Infura's strength is its proven track record of >99.9% uptime and its straightforward, scalable tiers that cater to projects from early-stage to enterprise, making it a dependable default choice for Ethereum and IPFS access.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing developer velocity, accessing deep on-chain data, and building complex, high-scale applications, choose Alchemy. Its advanced APIs and tooling ecosystem directly accelerate development cycles. If you prioritize rock-solid reliability, seamless ecosystem integration (especially with ConsenSys tools), and a straightforward, scalable path from prototype to production, choose Infura. Its operational maturity and predictable performance make it a lower-risk foundational layer.
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