InfStones excels at providing granular, usage-based cost control with its throughput-based billing model. This is ideal for applications with predictable, high-volume traffic patterns, such as NFT marketplaces like Blur or perpetual DEXs like GMX, where requests per second (RPS) are consistently high. By charging based on sustained throughput tiers (e.g., 1,000 RPS), it avoids the punitive per-request overage fees of pure pay-as-you-go models, offering better cost predictability for known workloads.
LABS
Comparisons
InfStones vs QuickNode: Throughput-Based Billing
A technical comparison of InfStones' compute unit model and QuickNode's request-based pricing. Analyzes cost efficiency for high-throughput dApps, enterprise APIs, and protocol infrastructure.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Billing Dilemma for High-Volume RPCs
Choosing between InfStones and QuickNode's billing models is a fundamental architectural decision that directly impacts cost predictability and scalability.
QuickNode takes a different approach with its traditional request-based (pay-per-call) billing, supplemented by high-tier dedicated node plans. This results in a trade-off: superior flexibility for variable or spiky traffic—common in new dApps or during airdrop events—but potential for unpredictable costs if usage surges unexpectedly. Their model is transparent for prototyping but requires careful monitoring to avoid bill shock at scale.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable, flat-rate scaling for known high throughput, choose InfStones. If you prioritize maximum flexibility for uncertain or highly variable traffic patterns and can manage usage spikes, QuickNode's model may be more suitable. The decision hinges on your application's traffic profile and operational tolerance for billing variance.
tldr-summary
InfStones vs QuickNode: Throughput-Based Billing
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core billing models and performance trade-offs for high-throughput applications.
01
InfStones: Predictable Cost at Scale
Fixed-rate throughput tiers: Pay a flat monthly fee for a guaranteed request volume (e.g., 50M requests/month). This matters for high-volume, predictable workloads like indexing services or large-scale DeFi aggregators where cost certainty is critical.
50M+
Requests/Month
02
InfStones: Potential for Lower Unit Cost
Economies of scale: Once you commit to a high-volume tier, the cost per request can drop significantly. This matters for established protocols with massive, consistent traffic (e.g., perpetual DEXs, major NFT marketplaces) looking to optimize long-term infrastructure spend.
03
QuickNode: Granular, Pay-As-You-Go
Per-request metering: Pay only for the compute units (CUs) your requests consume. This matters for spiky or unpredictable traffic patterns common in new dApp launches, NFT mints, or arbitrage bots, preventing over-provisioning.
< 1 sec
Billing Granularity
04
QuickNode: Built-in Cost Controls
Hard spending limits and alerts: Set caps to prevent runaway costs from bugs or traffic surges. This matters for startups and teams with strict budget oversight, providing a safety net against unexpected invoices from high-RPC usage.
INFSTONES VS QUICKNODE
Head-to-Head: Billing Model & Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of throughput-based billing, performance, and core features for blockchain infrastructure.
| Metric / Feature | InfStones | QuickNode |
|---|---|---|
Billing Model | Throughput-Based (Requests/sec) | Throughput-Based (Requests/sec) |
Base Price per 1M Requests | $199 | $299 |
Free Tier Requests/Month | 3M | 10M |
Dedicated Node Support | ||
Multi-Chain Support (Networks) | 80+ | 30+ |
Avg. Global Latency | < 100 ms | < 50 ms |
Enterprise SLA Uptime | 99.9% | 99.95% |
Advanced Analytics Dashboard |
COST ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD PROFILES
InfStones vs QuickNode: Throughput-Based Billing
Direct comparison of pricing models and performance for high-throughput applications.
| Metric / Feature | InfStones | QuickNode |
|---|---|---|
Primary Billing Model | Pay-as-you-go (per request) | Tiered plans + overages |
Free Tier Requests/Month | 5,000,000 | 3,000,000 |
Cost per 1M Requests (Standard) | $90 - $150 | $199 (Growth Plan) |
High-Throughput Discounts | Volume-based | Custom Enterprise |
Dedicated Node Premium | ||
Multi-Chain Request Bundling | ||
Real-Time Usage Analytics |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?
QuickNode for High-Throughput Apps
Verdict: The clear choice for scaling. QuickNode's throughput-based billing (requests per second, RPS) is engineered for predictable, high-volume workloads. Its global edge network and dedicated node tiers guarantee consistent performance during traffic spikes, critical for DEX aggregators like 1inch or perpetual protocols like GMX. You pay for capacity, not per-request, which is cost-effective at scale.
InfStones for High-Throughput Apps
Verdict: Risk of variable costs and throttling. InfStones' traditional per-request model can lead to unpredictable, runaway bills during high-usage periods. While they offer auto-scaling, hitting rate limits or experiencing latency during surges is a tangible risk for applications requiring sub-second block times and high TPS, such as on-chain gaming or social feeds.
pros-cons-a
Throughput-Based Billing Showdown
InfStones: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of InfStones and QuickNode's billing models, highlighting key trade-offs for high-throughput applications.
01
InfStones: Predictable Cost at Scale
Fixed-rate throughput tiers: Pay a flat monthly fee for a guaranteed request quota (e.g., 50M requests/month). This provides cost certainty for applications with stable, predictable traffic patterns, preventing bill shock from usage spikes. Ideal for enterprise dApps with known scaling forecasts.
02
InfStones: Potential for Lower Unit Costs
High-volume discounts: At massive scale (100M+ requests), InfStones' tiered pricing can yield a lower cost-per-request than pay-as-you-go models. This matters for data-intensive protocols like on-chain analytics platforms (The Graph, Dune Analytics) or high-frequency trading bots that require constant chain scanning.
03
QuickNode: Elastic, Usage-Based Billing
Pay for what you use: Billed per request with no upfront commitment. This eliminates overprovisioning waste and is optimal for variable workloads like NFT minting events, gaming launches, or new protocol deployments where traffic is spiky and unpredictable. Scales seamlessly with user adoption.
04
QuickNode: Granular Cost Control & Visibility
Real-time usage dashboards and per-endpoint metering provide precise cost attribution. This enables fine-grained optimization (e.g., pruning inefficient RPC calls) and is critical for multi-chain portfolios managing costs across Ethereum, Solana, and Polygon. Avoids the 'all-or-nothing' commitment of fixed tiers.
pros-cons-b
Throughput-Based Billing Showdown
QuickNode: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of InfStones and QuickNode's pricing models for high-throughput applications.
01
InfStones: Predictable Scaling
Fixed-rate throughput tiers: Pay a flat monthly fee for a guaranteed Requests Per Second (RPS) tier (e.g., 1,000 RPS). This provides cost certainty for applications with stable, predictable traffic patterns, eliminating bill shock from traffic spikes. Ideal for scheduled indexers, back-office analytics, and stable DeFi protocols.
02
InfStones: Potential Cost Advantage at Scale
Lower effective cost per request at high, consistent volume: If your application consistently operates near its tier's RPS limit, the per-request cost can be significantly lower than pay-as-you-go models. This matters for high-frequency data dashboards, enterprise-grade oracles, and always-on trading bots that require sustained high throughput.
03
QuickNode: Granular, Usage-Based Billing
Pay-per-request model: You are billed for the exact number of compute units (CUs) consumed, down to the individual API call. This is optimal for sporadic or unpredictable workloads, as you never pay for unused capacity. Essential for NFT minting events, gaming sessions, and applications with viral growth potential where traffic is bursty.
04
QuickNode: Automatic Elasticity
No provisioning or tier upgrades required: The infrastructure automatically scales to handle any request volume without manual intervention or service disruption. This eliminates capacity planning overhead and is critical for launching new dApps, handling flash loan events on Aave/Compound, and surviving Reddit/Twitter-driven traffic surges.
05
InfStones: The Overspend Risk
Inefficient for variable traffic: If your usage falls significantly below your paid tier, you waste budget on unused capacity. Conversely, exceeding your tier leads to rate limiting or failed requests, not just higher costs. A poor fit for prototypes, seasonal apps, or any project with highly volatile user activity.
06
QuickNode: The Budget Uncertainty
Unpredictable monthly costs: A successful marketing campaign or a smart contract exploit triggering massive on-chain queries can lead to unexpectedly high bills. Requires vigilant monitoring and cost alerts. Can be challenging for startups with tight, fixed budgets or grant-funded projects that need precise financial forecasting.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between InfStones and QuickNode's throughput models requires aligning your application's traffic profile with the right economic and performance structure.
InfStones excels at providing predictable, high-volume infrastructure for applications with consistent, heavy loads because its throughput-based billing decouples cost from request volume. For example, a protocol like Aave or Uniswap V3 that maintains a steady stream of high-frequency data queries and transaction submissions can secure a dedicated throughput tier (e.g., 1,000 requests per second) for a flat monthly fee, eliminating the risk of bill shock from traffic spikes. This model is ideal for DeFi protocols, high-frequency trading bots, and data aggregators that require guaranteed performance and stable operational costs.
QuickNode takes a different approach by coupling its billing to actual request consumption via a pay-as-you-go model with tiered volume discounts. This results in a trade-off: superior cost-efficiency for applications with variable or unpredictable traffic patterns, but less predictability for consistently high-load scenarios. A project like an NFT minting platform with sporadic, bursty activity can benefit from only paying for what it uses during launch events, while avoiding the premium of a permanently high throughput tier during quiet periods.
The key trade-off: If your priority is cost predictability and guaranteed performance for sustained, high-throughput operations, choose InfStones. Its flat-rate tiers provide a stable foundation for core protocol infrastructure. If you prioritize cost optimization for variable, spiky, or growing workloads where you pay directly for usage, choose QuickNode. Its granular billing aligns expenses with actual consumption, making it a flexible choice for applications in scaling phases or with seasonal demand.
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