Alchemy excels at predictable, usage-based scaling with its Compute Units (CU) model. This abstracts away the complexity of individual RPC calls, allowing developers to forecast costs based on application load rather than raw request counts. For high-throughput dApps on chains like Ethereum or Polygon, this can simplify budgeting. Their eth_getLogs and archival data queries are particularly optimized within this model, offering consistent performance for data-heavy operations.
LABS
Comparisons
Alchemy vs Infura: Pay-As-You-Go Pricing
A technical analysis comparing the pricing models, free tiers, and cost structures of Alchemy and Infura for CTOs and engineering leaders scaling production dApps.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The RPC Pricing Battle for Scale
A head-to-head comparison of Alchemy's and Infura's pay-as-you-go models, focusing on cost predictability, performance, and suitability for scaling applications.
Infura takes a different approach with its classic request-based pricing, charging per request with tiered monthly limits. This results in a straightforward, per-call cost that is easy to understand for smaller-scale projects or those with stable, predictable traffic. However, the trade-off emerges at scale: sudden traffic spikes can lead to hard caps and throttling unless you proactively upgrade your plan, which can introduce operational overhead.
The key trade-off: If your priority is cost predictability and high-volume stability for a scaling application, choose Alchemy's Compute Units. If you prioritize simplicity and per-request transparency for a project with steady, moderate traffic, Infura's request-based model is a solid fit. Always benchmark your specific workload—including heavy calls like trace_block—against both pricing structures before committing.
tldr-summary
Alchemy vs Infura: Pay-As-You-Go Pricing
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of strengths and trade-offs for two leading RPC providers, based on pricing models, feature sets, and operational data.
01
Alchemy's Supernode Architecture
Higher performance & reliability: Built on proprietary Supernode tech, offering higher throughput and lower latency for complex queries. This matters for high-frequency dApps like NFT marketplaces (e.g., OpenSea) or high-TPS DeFi protocols requiring consistent sub-100ms response times.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
Infura's Multi-Chain Simplicity
Broad, integrated network access: Provides seamless, unified access to Ethereum, IPFS, Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum, and more from a single dashboard and API key. This matters for multi-chain protocols or teams deploying across the Ethereum L2 ecosystem who want to avoid managing separate provider contracts.
10+
Networks
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Alchemy vs Infura: Pay-As-You-Go Pricing & Features
Direct comparison of key pricing, performance, and feature metrics for enterprise node providers.
| Metric | Alchemy | Infura |
|---|---|---|
Pay-As-You-Go Price per 1M CUs | $0.10 | $0.15 |
Free Tier CUs per Month | 300M | 150M |
Multi-Chain Support (EVM) | ||
Multi-Chain Support (Non-EVM) | ||
Enhanced APIs (NFT, Transfers) | ||
Webhook Support | ||
Max Compute Units per Second | 330 CUs | Unlimited* |
Historical Data Access (Archive Nodes) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Alchemy vs Infura: Pay-As-You-Go Pricing
A data-driven breakdown of the key pricing differentiators for scaling applications. Choose based on your traffic patterns and cost predictability needs.
01
Alchemy Pro: Granular, Usage-Based Metering
True pay-per-request model: Charges per Compute Unit (CU) for most APIs, allowing fine-grained cost optimization for variable workloads. This matters for highly volatile dApps (e.g., NFT mints, gaming events) where traffic spikes are unpredictable. You only pay for the compute you consume, not pre-allocated capacity.
02
Alchemy Con: Complex Cost Forecasting
Unpredictable monthly bills: With CU-based pricing, costs can scale non-linearly with user growth or complex query patterns (e.g., heavy eth_getLogs usage). This matters for startups with tight burn rates who need predictable OpEx. Requires active monitoring via the Alchemy dashboard to avoid surprises.
03
Infura Pro: Simple, Predictable Tiers
Clear monthly request caps: Offers tiered plans (e.g., 250K, 1M, 5M requests/day) with straightforward overage fees. This matters for enterprise teams requiring stable, forecastable infrastructure costs for budgeting. The model is easier to model for steady-state applications with consistent API call volumes.
04
Infura Con: Rigid for Bursty Traffic
Inefficient for spikes: Daily hard caps can throttle your application during traffic surges unless you purchase a much larger, underutilized tier. Overage fees can become expensive. This matters for protocols launching new features or tokens where daily request volumes can vary by 10x, leading to either throttling or overpaying.
pros-cons-b
PAYG Pricing Comparison
Infura: Pros and Cons for Scaling
Key strengths and trade-offs of Alchemy's and Infura's pay-as-you-go models for high-throughput applications.
01
Alchemy's Predictable Cost Scaling
Granular, usage-based pricing: Pay per compute unit (CU) with no per-request fees. This matters for high-volume dApps like NFT marketplaces (e.g., OpenSea) or DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave) where predictable scaling costs are critical for unit economics. You can forecast spend based on compute, not unpredictable request spikes.
02
Infura's Simpler Entry Model
Straightforward per-request pricing: Simple to estimate costs for early-stage projects. This matters for prototypes and MVPs where developer time is more valuable than micro-optimizing compute. The free tier (100K daily requests) and clear upgrade path lower the initial evaluation barrier.
03
Alchemy's Hidden Overage Risk
Compute unit estimation complexity: Unoptimized queries or traffic spikes can burn through CUs faster than expected, leading to surprise bills. This matters for teams without dedicated DevOps to monitor and tune GraphQL queries and WebSocket connections. Requires active cost management.
04
Infura's Throughput Limitations
Hard request caps on PAYG: Infura's PAYG plan has documented requests-per-second (RPS) limits. Exceeding these causes throttling (429 errors). This matters for real-time applications like on-chain gaming or high-frequency trading bots that require guaranteed, unbounded throughput during peak loads.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Alchemy for Cost Control
Verdict: Superior for predictable, high-volume workloads. Strengths: Alchemy's Pay-As-You-Go model is built for scale. Its Usage-Based Pricing (Compute Units) offers granular cost tracking per API call type (e.g., eth_call, eth_getLogs). For projects with consistent, high throughput (e.g., a high-frequency DEX indexer or a wallet backend), this model provides predictable billing and significant volume discounts. The ability to monitor and optimize Compute Unit consumption directly in the dashboard is a key differentiator.
Infura for Cost Control
Verdict: Simpler for low-to-moderate, variable usage. Strengths: Infura's tiered Request-Based Pricing (e.g., 100K requests/day) is straightforward to understand. It's often more cost-effective for projects in early development, MVPs, or those with sporadic, unpredictable traffic patterns where over-provisioning is a risk. However, watch for overage fees if you exceed your tier's daily limit, which can lead to bill surprises.
ALCHEMY VS INFURA
Frequently Asked Questions on Pricing
Direct comparisons of pay-as-you-go pricing models, free tiers, and cost structures for two leading node providers.
Infura is generally cheaper for standard, low-volume JSON-RPC requests. Their pay-as-you-go rate is $0.000001 per compute unit, often resulting in lower costs for basic queries. Alchemy's base rate is $0.0000025 per compute unit, but its superior reliability and advanced features like the alchemy_getTokenBalances method can reduce the number of calls needed, potentially lowering effective costs for complex dApps. For simple reads, Infura wins on price; for production apps needing high uptime and bundled data, Alchemy's efficiency can be more cost-effective.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on which provider offers superior value and strategic fit for your specific project needs.
Alchemy excels at delivering a premium, feature-rich developer experience for high-throughput applications, justified by its higher price point. Its superior reliability, with a documented 99.9%+ uptime SLA, and advanced tooling like the alchemy_mempool suite, WebSockets, and enhanced APIs provide tangible value for scaling protocols. For example, projects like OpenSea and 0x leverage Alchemy's robust infrastructure to handle millions of requests daily, where reliability directly impacts revenue.
Infura takes a different approach by offering a simpler, more accessible entry point with a generous free tier and predictable, volume-based pricing. This results in a trade-off: while its core RPC service is highly reliable, advanced features like real-time event streaming or dedicated endpoints often require upgrading to premium plans. Its integration with the Consensys ecosystem (MetaMask, Truffle) provides excellent out-of-the-box compatibility for new projects and developers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing developer velocity, advanced tooling, and infrastructure resilience for a production dApp with significant traffic, choose Alchemy. The higher cost per request is offset by reduced engineering overhead and risk. If you prioritize cost predictability, a generous free tier for prototyping, and seamless integration with the broader Ethereum toolchain, choose Infura. Its pricing model is easier to forecast for early-stage projects with variable usage.
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