Covalent excels at providing structured, historical, and aggregated on-chain data across 200+ supported blockchains through a unified API. Its philosophy centers on data enrichment, transforming raw blockchain logs into queryable business logic like wallet balances, NFT holdings, and token transfers. For example, a single Covalent API call can return a complete historical portfolio for any Ethereum address, a task requiring thousands of raw RPC calls and complex event parsing if built in-house.
LABS
Comparisons
Covalent vs Infura: Unified Blockchain Data API
A technical analysis comparing Covalent's aggregated, historical data API with Infura's real-time RPC node infrastructure. We break down core architecture, performance trade-offs, and cost models to help technical leaders choose the right provider.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Philosophies for Blockchain Data Access
Covalent and Infura represent two distinct architectural paradigms for serving blockchain data to developers, with profound implications for application design and cost.
Infura takes a different approach by providing direct, high-performance access to blockchain node RPC endpoints. Its strategy is infrastructure-as-a-service, offering the reliable execution layer for transactions, smart contract calls, and real-time event listening. This results in a trade-off: unparalleled reliability and speed for core operations (boasting >99.9% uptime for its Ethereum API) but places the burden of data indexing, transformation, and historical analysis onto the application developer.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building data-intensive applications like dashboards, explorers, or tax reporting tools that require complex, cross-chain queries, choose Covalent. If you prioritize executing transactions and interacting with live smart contracts with maximum speed and reliability for DeFi protocols or NFT mints, choose Infura.
tldr-summary
PROS & CONS
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Covalent: Unified Multi-Chain Data
Single API for 200+ blockchains: Query across Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, and Cosmos with identical SQL-like syntax. This matters for multi-chain dApps and cross-chain analytics where maintaining separate RPC endpoints is a burden.
200+
Supported Chains
02
Covalent: Rich Historical Data
Granular, decoded historical state: Access full transaction histories, NFT metadata, and token balances at any block. This matters for on-chain forensics, portfolio dashboards, and tax reporting where raw RPC data is insufficient.
100%
Data Decoding
03
Infura: Core RPC & Transaction Reliability
Industry-standard Ethereum RPC: Provides low-latency, high-availability access to the Ethereum execution layer. This matters for high-frequency trading bots, wallet providers, and DeFi protocols where transaction submission speed and reliability are critical.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Infura: Developer Tooling & Ecosystem
Deep integration with Ethereum toolchain: Native support for Hardhat, Truffle, and MetaMask. This matters for rapid prototyping and teams already embedded in the Ethereum ecosystem who need seamless dev experience.
400K+
Active Developers
05
Covalent: Complex Query Limitations
Higher latency for complex joins: While powerful, multi-chain aggregation queries can be slower than direct RPC calls. This is a trade-off for real-time settlement applications where sub-second finality is required.
1-5s
Typical Query Latency
06
Infura: Data Scope Constraint
Primarily real-time & execution layer: Limited historical data and no native cross-chain indexing. This matters for data-intensive applications like DEX aggregator analytics or NFT rarity engines that need enriched, historical datasets.
~30 Days
Standard Log History
COVALENT VS INFURA
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of unified blockchain data APIs for developers and enterprises.
| Metric | Covalent | Infura |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Model | Historical & Real-time (Unified API) | Real-time (RPC + Specialized APIs) |
Supported Chains (Count) | 200+ | 15+ |
Data Granularity | Wallet-level, NFT, Token | Block-level, Transaction |
Pricing Model | Pay-per-API-call | Request-tiered & Enterprise |
Free Tier Requests/Month | 3,000,000 | 100,000 |
Data Export (BigQuery/Snowflake) | ||
Unified API Across Chains |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Covalent vs Infura
Covalent for DeFi
Verdict: The definitive choice for complex analytics, portfolio tracking, and historical data. Strengths: Covalent's Unified API provides normalized, decoded transaction data across 200+ chains, essential for building dashboards for protocols like Aave or Uniswap. It excels at historical queries (e.g., user's full transaction history, LP position changes) and complex aggregations without requiring archival nodes. Its data lake model is built for queries that Infura's RPC endpoints cannot efficiently answer. Key Metric: Access to years of historical state data (e.g., past token balances, NFT ownership) in a single API call.
Infura for DeFi
Verdict: The operational backbone for live contract interactions and transaction broadcasting.
Strengths: Infura provides the core JSON-RPC connectivity needed to read blockchain state and send transactions in real-time. It's critical for wallet integrations, smart contract interactions (e.g., executing swaps on 1inch), and subscribing to new blocks. Its reliability and speed for these core operations are industry-standard.
Key Metric: >99.9% uptime and sub-second latency for eth_getBalance or eth_sendRawTransaction calls.
Trade-off: For deep historical analysis, you must manage your own indexer or layer another service on top.
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Covalent vs Infura: Unified Blockchain Data API
A data-driven comparison of two leading API providers, highlighting key architectural and commercial trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
01
Covalent's Strength: Unified Multi-Chain Data
Single API for 200+ blockchains: Query wallet balances, NFT holdings, and transaction history across EVM, Cosmos, and other ecosystems with identical endpoints. This eliminates the need to integrate and maintain separate RPC clients for each chain, drastically reducing development overhead for cross-chain applications like portfolio dashboards or multi-chain DeFi aggregators.
02
Covalent's Strength: Deep Historical Indexing
Granular, decoded historical data: Access full historical state (e.g., token transfers, NFT metadata, log events) without running archival nodes. Unlike raw RPC calls, data is indexed, normalized, and context-enriched (with token prices, NFT images). Critical for building analytics platforms, tax reporting tools, or conducting on-chain forensic research without massive data engineering.
03
Infura's Strength: Core RPC Reliability & Speed
Industry-standard low-latency RPC: Provides direct, high-performance JSON-RPC endpoints for core operations (eth_getBalance, eth_sendRawTransaction). Benchmarks consistently show sub-100ms response times for mainnet calls. This raw speed and reliability is non-negotiable for user-facing dApp interactions, wallet providers, and high-frequency trading bots where every millisecond counts.
04
Infura's Strength: Ethereum Core Development Alignment
Built by Consensys, deeply integrated with core tooling: Tight integration with MetaMask, Truffle, and Hardhat. Often first to support new EIPs and testnets (e.g., Holesky). This makes it the default, low-friction choice for teams building primarily on Ethereum or EVM L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) who prioritize ecosystem compatibility and developer familiarity.
05
Covalent's Trade-off: Data Latency vs. Depth
Indexing creates a data delay: The enriched, queryable data is not real-time; there's a indexing lag (minutes to hours) vs. Infura's near-instant RPC. This makes Covalent unsuitable for applications requiring immediate state confirmation, such as live transaction settlement UIs or oracle price feeds that must reflect the very latest block.
06
Infura's Trade-off: Data Complexity Burden
Raw data requires heavy client-side processing: To get wallet portfolios or NFT collections, you must make numerous RPC calls (eth_getLogs, token contracts) and aggregate/decode data yourself. This shifts significant computational and engineering burden to your team, increasing costs and time-to-market for data-rich applications compared to a unified API.
pros-cons-b
Covalent vs Infura: Unified Blockchain Data API
Infura: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading infrastructure providers.
02
Covalent: Wallet & NFT Abstraction
Native abstractions for complex queries: Offers high-level endpoints like Get token balances for address and Get NFT transactions that compile raw blockchain data into developer-friendly models. This matters for building portfolio trackers, NFT marketplaces, or any app where user-centric wallet data is the core product.
04
Infura: Ethereum Ecosystem Integration
Deep tooling and network support: Offers specialized APIs for Ethereum (ETH, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism) and seamless integration with MetaMask, Truffle, and Hardhat. This matters for teams building exclusively within the Ethereum ecosystem who prioritize toolchain compatibility and developer experience.
COVALENT VS INFURA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Data Models
A technical comparison of Covalent's unified data lake architecture versus Infura's core node infrastructure, focusing on data models, query capabilities, and architectural trade-offs for enterprise applications.
Infura provides direct node access, while Covalent offers a unified data API built on a historical data lake. Infura's architecture is centered on running and load-balancing Ethereum and other blockchain nodes (like Optimism, Arbitrum), giving developers raw RPC/JSON-RPC access. Covalent ingests, normalizes, and indexes raw on-chain data into a single, queryable data lake, providing a higher-level abstraction for complex data queries across 200+ chains. This makes Infura ideal for transaction broadcasting and real-time state, while Covalent excels at historical data analysis and multi-chain aggregation.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Covalent and Infura hinges on whether your application needs deep historical data analysis or high-performance real-time RPC access.
Covalent excels at providing unified, granular historical data across 200+ blockchains because its architecture is built from the ground up as a data warehouse. For example, its Unified API allows a single query to fetch an address's complete transaction history, token balances, and NFT holdings across chains like Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum, bypassing the need for complex multi-RPC calls and log parsing. This makes it ideal for portfolio dashboards, tax reporting tools, and on-chain analytics platforms that require rich, aggregated historical context.
Infura takes a different approach by specializing as a high-performance, reliable gateway for real-time blockchain interaction. This results in a trade-off: while it offers superior RPC node uptime (99.9% SLA) and low-latency access to core chains like Ethereum, Polygon, and Optimism for sending transactions and reading current state, its data offerings are more foundational. Tools like the Transactions API provide enhanced data, but for deep historical analysis, developers often need to layer additional indexing infrastructure on top.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building data-intensive applications that analyze wallet history, compute portfolio values, or track token flows across time and chains, choose Covalent. Its unified data model saves months of development time. If you prioritize high-throughput, real-time interactions—such as powering a decentralized exchange's trading engine, a wallet's transaction sending, or a minting site's smart contract calls—and you prefer to manage your own data layer, choose Infura. Its robust RPC infrastructure is the industry standard for core blockchain connectivity.
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