Pocket Network excels at predictable, usage-based costs for high-throughput applications because it operates on a decentralized network of independent node runners. Its POKT token-based model charges per relay, decoupling cost from Ethereum gas fees. For example, at scale, this can translate to ~$0.000001 per request, offering significant savings for protocols like Fuse Network or Polygon that require millions of daily RPC calls without unpredictable monthly bills.
LABS
Comparisons
Pocket Network vs Infura: Cost-Per-Request Models
A technical and commercial analysis comparing Pocket Network's decentralized, token-based micro-payments with Infura's traditional aggregated billing. For CTOs and architects evaluating blockchain infrastructure.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The RPC Billing Paradigm Shift
A data-driven comparison of the decentralized, pay-as-you-go model of Pocket Network versus the traditional, subscription-based approach of Infura.
Infura takes a different approach by offering a managed, enterprise-grade service with tiered subscription plans. This results in a trade-off of simplicity and support for predictability of spend over pure per-unit cost. Its free tier and predictable monthly caps (e.g., 100K requests/day on the Core plan) are ideal for startups and projects prioritizing reliability, comprehensive tooling like the Infura Transactions API, and not managing node infrastructure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing marginal cost per request at massive scale and embracing decentralization, choose Pocket Network. If you prioritize budget predictability, premium SLAs, and a fully-managed suite of developer tools, choose Infura. The decision hinges on whether your architecture values cost-optimized throughput or operational simplicity.
tldr-summary
Pocket Network vs Infura
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Pocket Network: Decentralized Cost Model
Pay-as-you-go with POKT: No monthly commitments or credit card. Costs are predictable based on relay volume, not API tier. This matters for scaling applications where traffic is unpredictable, as you only pay for what you use without surprise bills.
~$0.85
Per 1M Relays (Est.)
02
Pocket Network: Censorship Resistance
Decentralized Node Network: 40,000+ independent nodes across 30+ chains provide redundancy and no single point of failure. This matters for mission-critical DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound) and applications that cannot afford centralized service downtime or selective blacklisting.
40k+
Full Nodes
03
Infura: Simplicity & Integration
Fixed-Tier Pricing: Straightforward monthly plans with high free tier (100k daily requests). Seamless integration with MetaMask, Truffle, and Hardhat. This matters for rapid prototyping, startups, and teams that prioritize developer experience and need to get to market quickly without managing node infrastructure.
100k
Free Daily Requests
04
Infura: Enterprise Support & SLAs
Guaranteed Uptime & Dedicated Support: Paid plans come with Service Level Agreements (SLAs), dedicated endpoints, and priority support. This matters for enterprise clients and large-scale Web2 integrations (e.g., NFT marketplaces, payment gateways) that require contractual reliability and direct technical account management.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Pocket Network vs Infura: Cost-Per-Request Models
Direct comparison of pricing, decentralization, and service models for blockchain RPC access.
| Metric | Pocket Network | Infura |
|---|---|---|
Pricing Model | Pay-as-you-go (POKT) | Tiered Subscription (USD) |
Cost per 1M Requests (ETH) | $7 - $15 | $250 - $2,500+ |
Decentralized Node Network | ||
Multi-Chain Support (EVM, Cosmos, Solana) | ||
Service-Level Agreement (SLA) | 99.9% (Community) | 99.9% (Enterprise) |
Rate Limits (Free Tier) | 1M reqs/day | 100k reqs/day |
Requires API Key | ||
Requires Native Token (POKT/ETH) |
pros-cons-a
ANALYSIS
Pocket Network vs Infura: Cost-Per-Request Models
A direct comparison of the decentralized and centralized infrastructure models, focusing on cost structure, reliability, and architectural trade-offs.
01
Pocket Network: Decentralized Cost Model
Pay-as-you-go with POKT: No monthly subscriptions. Costs are based on relay volume, with a fixed rate of 0.01 POKT per request. This model provides predictable, usage-based scaling and eliminates vendor lock-in. It's ideal for protocols with variable traffic or those building in regions with high API costs.
02
Pocket Network: Censorship Resistance
Architectural resilience: Requests are distributed across 20,000+ independent, staked nodes. This eliminates single points of failure and prevents service blackouts due to centralized provider policies. Critical for DeFi protocols and DAOs requiring maximum uptime and neutrality, as seen during the Infura Ethereum outage in 2020.
03
Infura: Simplified Enterprise Billing
Tiered subscription plans: Offers free, growth ($250/month), and enterprise tiers with set request limits and dedicated endpoints. Provides budget predictability for teams with stable, forecasted usage. The model suits startups and enterprises that prefer consolidated billing, SLAs, and direct support over managing a decentralized network.
04
Infura: Performance & Developer Experience
Optimized global infrastructure: Managed load balancers and CDNs ensure low-latency, high-throughput access (< 100ms p95 latency). Offers advanced APIs (e.g., NFT, Transaction Relay) and deep integration with MetaMask, Truffle, and Hardhat. Best for teams prioritizing rapid development, consistent performance, and familiar tooling without operational overhead.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Pocket Network vs Infura: Cost-Per-Request Models
A direct comparison of the decentralized, pay-as-you-go model versus the traditional enterprise SaaS approach for blockchain RPC access.
01
Pocket Network: Cost Predictability
Pay per request with no volume caps: Billed in $POKT for each relay, eliminating surprise overage fees. This matters for scaling dApps where user growth directly translates to predictable, linear infrastructure costs. Example: 100M monthly requests cost a fixed amount of POKT, regardless of traffic spikes.
~$0.85
Per 1M Requests (Est.)
02
Pocket Network: Decentralized Redundancy
Requests distributed across 20k+ independent nodes: No single point of failure. This matters for mission-critical DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound forks) requiring 99.99%+ uptime and censorship resistance. The network's design inherently mitigates service outages from any single provider.
03
Infura: Simplified Enterprise Billing
Fixed monthly tiers with high request limits: Offers predictable budgeting for established enterprises. This matters for large Web2 companies or stable-traffic protocols (e.g., MetaMask's backend) that prefer consolidated invoices and dedicated support over managing crypto payments for infrastructure.
$250+
Growth Plan / Month
04
Infura: Integrated Tooling & Support
Access to ConsenSys ecosystem (Truffle, MetaMask) and SLAs: Comes with premium support, advanced APIs (Trace, Debug), and enterprise-grade monitoring. This matters for teams prioritizing developer velocity and operational hand-holding over infrastructure decentralization.
05
Pocket Network: Technical Overhead
Requires managing $POKT treasury and node coordination: Teams must handle token economics, staking, and node selection. This is a con for small teams or those wanting a pure SaaS experience, as it adds blockchain-native operational complexity versus a credit card subscription.
06
Infura: Centralized Pricing Power
Subject to unilateral price changes and service limits: Infura controls tier structures and can modify terms. This is a con for budget-sensitive or long-term planning projects, as seen when free tier requests were capped, forcing migrations to alternatives like Alchemy or Pocket.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Pocket Network for Cost-Sensitive Apps
Verdict: The clear winner for high-throughput, predictable costs. Strengths: Pocket's decentralized network uses a pay-as-you-go POKT token model. Costs are predictable and decoupled from mainnet gas fees, making it ideal for applications with high, sustained request volumes (e.g., data dashboards, analytics platforms, social dApps). There are no monthly subscription tiers; you pay per relay. For a project like Dune Analytics or The Graph indexing, this model provides superior long-term cost control.
Infura for Cost-Sensitive Apps
Verdict: Simpler for low-volume or variable usage, but costs can spike. Strengths: Infura's tiered subscription model (Free, Growth, Scale) is straightforward for teams with low or unpredictable traffic. The free tier (100k daily requests) is excellent for prototyping. However, at scale, costs are tied to Ethereum gas prices and request volume, leading to unpredictable bills. For a new NFT minting site with bursty traffic, Infura's simplicity may win initially, but scaling requires careful monitoring.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A direct comparison of the economic and architectural trade-offs between Pocket Network's decentralized model and Infura's enterprise SaaS approach.
Pocket Network excels at providing predictable, usage-based costs for high-throughput applications because of its decentralized, crypto-economic model. For example, its cost-per-relay can be as low as 0.0000009 USD (varies with POKT price), which becomes highly economical for projects exceeding 50 million monthly requests, effectively decoupling costs from Ethereum gas price volatility. This model is ideal for protocols like Fuse or Polygon Supernets that require massive, stable data access without surprise bills.
Infura takes a different approach by offering a traditional, tiered SaaS subscription model. This results in a trade-off: you gain enterprise-grade reliability (historically >99.9% uptime), dedicated support, and advanced features like the Ethereum API, but face hard monthly request caps and potential overage fees. Its pricing is optimal for projects with predictable, lower-volume needs or those requiring the robust tooling and compliance assurances of a ConsenSys-backed service.
The key trade-off is between cost predictability at scale and enterprise convenience. If your priority is unlimited, censorship-resistant requests with a variable but often lower long-term cost, choose Pocket Network. This suits dApps with explosive growth or those building on multiple chains like Avalanche or Solana via Pocket's multichain support. If you prioritize fixed operational budgets, premium SLAs, and deep integration with the Ethereum ecosystem (including MetaMask and Truffle), choose Infura. This is the safer bet for established enterprises or projects in regulated spaces where vendor accountability is paramount.
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