RPC services with built-in analytics (like Alchemy Supernode, QuickNode Add-ons, or Chainstack Insights) excel at providing immediate, developer-friendly observability. They embed metrics like request latency, error rates, and gas usage directly into the developer workflow, reducing time-to-insight. For example, Alchemy's dashboard provides sub-100ms latency tracking and automatic alerting on degraded performance, which is critical for high-frequency dApps requiring real-time health checks.
LABS
Comparisons
RPC with Built-in Analytics vs Separate Monitoring Tools
A technical comparison for CTOs and engineering leads evaluating integrated RPC analytics from providers like Alchemy and QuickNode against building a custom monitoring stack with Prometheus and Grafana.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Observability Dilemma for Blockchain Infrastructure
Choosing between integrated RPC analytics and separate monitoring tools is a foundational decision impacting cost, control, and operational insight.
Separate, dedicated monitoring tools (such as Tenderly, Blocknative, or custom Grafana/Prometheus stacks) take a different approach by offering deep, chain-agnostic analysis and longer-term data retention. This results in superior flexibility for complex investigations—like tracing failed transactions across multiple blocks or correlating mempool activity with on-chain events—but introduces integration overhead and potential data silos compared to a unified RPC provider.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity and integrated simplicity for a primary chain, choose an RPC with built-in analytics. If you prioritize deep, customizable forensics, multi-chain monitoring, or owning your data pipeline, choose a separate, dedicated toolset. The decision often hinges on whether observability is a core feature of your product or a backend operational concern.
tldr-summary
RPC with Built-in Analytics vs. Separate Monitoring Tools
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of integrated and modular approaches to blockchain observability, highlighting core trade-offs for engineering leaders.
01
Integrated RPC (e.g., Alchemy, Chainscore)
Unified Data Pipeline: Metrics, logs, and traces are co-located with the node request. This eliminates data silos and ensures single-source-of-truth for debugging. Ideal for teams needing real-time alerting on transaction failures or gas spikes.
02
Separate Monitoring (e.g., Tenderly + Public RPC)
Best-in-Class Flexibility: Choose a specialized RPC (like Infura for reliability) and a separate analytics platform (like Tenderly for simulations). This allows for deep, protocol-specific dashboards (e.g., Uniswap LP positions) without vendor lock-in.
03
Integrated RPC (e.g., Alchemy, Chainscore)
Lower Latency for Debugging: Query historical transactions and wallet activity directly via the RPC (eth_getTransactionReceipt with enriched logs). Critical for customer support teams and dApps needing instant on-chain state verification.
04
Separate Monitoring (e.g., Tenderly + Public RPC)
Cost Control & Granular Scaling: Pay separately for RPC calls vs. analytics compute. This is optimal for protocols with bursty traffic patterns or those who already have a data warehouse (BigQuery, Snowflake) and only need raw logs.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: RPC with Built-in Analytics vs Separate Monitoring Tools
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for blockchain data access and observability strategies.
| Metric / Feature | All-in-One RPC (e.g., Alchemy, QuickNode) | Separate RPC + Tools (e.g., Public RPC + The Graph, Dune) |
|---|---|---|
Time to Actionable Insights | < 1 sec | Minutes to hours |
Cost for 1M Requests (Tier 1) | $200 - $500 | $0 (RPC) + $100-$300+ (Tools) |
Native Support for Debug Traces | ||
Historical Data Query Depth | ~30 days via API | Full history via indexing |
Real-time Alerting & Webhooks | ||
Developer Onboarding Complexity | Low (Single API Key) | High (Multiple services, indexing) |
Custom Data Indexing Required |
pros-cons-a
RPC with Built-in Analytics vs. Separate Monitoring Tools
Pros and Cons: RPC with Built-in Analytics
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for infrastructure architects deciding between integrated and modular monitoring solutions.
02
Reduced Architectural Complexity
Single Vendor SLA: Eliminates the need to manage, sync, and maintain separate data indexing services (like The Graph) or monitoring stacks (like Prometheus/Grafana for nodes). This matters for lean engineering teams wanting to reduce DevOps overhead and focus on core product development.
~70%
Reduced Dev Time
04
Vendor Independence & Cost Control
Avoid Lock-in & Optimize Spend: Decoupling allows you to switch RPC providers (e.g., from Infura to a private node) without rebuilding your entire analytics stack. You can also scale monitoring independently. This matters for enterprises with long-term infrastructure roadmaps and budget-conscious teams who can use open-source tools.
Multi-Chain
Analytics Flexibility
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURE DECISION
Pros and Cons: RPC with Built-in Analytics vs. Separate Monitoring Stack
Key strengths and trade-offs for integrating analytics into your RPC provider versus managing a separate monitoring stack.
01
RPC with Built-in Analytics: Pros
Unified Data Pipeline: Eliminates the need to sync, parse, and index raw blockchain data. Providers like Chainscore and Alchemy Supernode deliver metrics (e.g., TPS, error rates, gas consumption) directly from the node, reducing data latency to < 1 second.
Lower Operational Overhead: No need to manage separate infrastructure for Prometheus, Grafana, or data lakes. This matters for lean teams wanting to deploy and monitor dApps like Uniswap or Aave frontends without dedicating engineers to observability.
02
RPC with Built-in Analytics: Cons
Vendor Lock-in Risk: Analytics are tied to your RPC provider's schema and API. Migrating from Infura to QuickNode means losing historical comparison and rebuilding dashboards.
Limited Customization: Pre-built dashboards may not support complex, protocol-specific KPIs. For example, tracking MEV bundle success rates for a searcher or custom slippage models for a Curve Finance fork requires deeper access than standard APIs provide.
03
Separate Monitoring Stack: Pros
Maximum Flexibility & Control: Instrument everything from EVM execution traces to validator performance using tools like Tenderly for debugging, Erigon for archival data, and Grafana for visualization. This is critical for protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool that require sub-second validator metrics.
Multi-Chain & Multi-Provider Aggregation: Correlate performance across 10+ RPC endpoints (e.g., Alchemy, Chainstack, private nodes) to identify provider-specific latency or errors, ensuring 99.99%+ reliability for cross-chain bridges like LayerZero.
04
Separate Monitoring Stack: Cons
High Implementation Cost: Requires significant engineering resources to build and maintain. A robust stack using The Graph for indexing, TimescaleDB for metrics, and alerting with PagerDuty can cost 2+ engineer-years and $50K+/year in cloud costs.
Data Consistency Challenges: Synchronizing block data across your node, indexer, and analytics database introduces lag and potential discrepancies. This can delay critical alerts for TVL drops in a lending protocol or sandwich attack detection.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Approach
Integrated RPC Analytics (e.g., Alchemy Supernode, QuickNode Add-ons)
Verdict: The default choice for new protocols requiring deep, real-time insights. Strengths: Native integration eliminates data pipeline complexity. You get immediate access to custom metrics like user cohort analysis, contract-specific error rates, and gas spend dashboards. This is critical for protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3, where understanding liquidity provider behavior and fee accrual in real-time directly impacts parameter tuning and governance. Trade-off: Vendor lock-in is the primary risk. Your analytics are tied to your RPC provider's schema and availability.
Separate Monitoring Stack (e.g., Tenderly, Blocknative, Dune + Custom Indexer)
Verdict: Essential for mature protocols with complex, multi-chain deployments or stringent data sovereignty needs. Strengths: Unparalleled flexibility and independence. You can correlate data across multiple RPC providers (Infura, Chainstack, your own nodes) and chains. Tools like Tenderly offer advanced simulation and debugging, while Dune allows for bespoke, community-accessible dashboards. This approach is used by protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool to monitor validator performance across execution and consensus layers. Trade-off: Significant engineering overhead to build, maintain, and sync the data pipeline.
RPC WITH ANALYTICS VS. SEPARATE MONITORING
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation and Data Fidelity
Choosing between an integrated RPC analytics stack and a separate monitoring suite is a critical architectural decision. This section compares the technical trade-offs in data consistency, latency, cost, and operational overhead for high-stakes infrastructure.
Alchemy's Supernode provides more consistent, chain-indexed data out-of-the-box. It offers a unified API for real-time and historical data with strong consistency guarantees, eliminating the sync delays common when scraping raw RPC nodes. A custom Grafana/Prometheus setup relies on your node's sync state and your scraper's logic, which can lead to data gaps or staleness during chain reorgs or node failures. For applications requiring absolute data fidelity like on-chain analytics dashboards or compliance reporting, the integrated solution reduces risk.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between an integrated RPC with analytics and separate monitoring tools is a strategic decision that balances simplicity against flexibility.
RPC with Built-in Analytics excels at providing immediate, correlated insights with minimal operational overhead. Because metrics like request latency, error rates, and method-specific TPS are collected at the source, you get a unified view of performance and health without managing separate data pipelines. For example, services like Alchemy's Supernode or QuickNode's analytics dashboards offer sub-100ms query times on historical data, enabling rapid debugging of issues like gas spikes or contract call failures directly within the RPC interface.
Separate Monitoring Tools take a different approach by decoupling data collection from the RPC provider. This strategy, using platforms like Datadog, Grafana with Prometheus, or specialized blockchain monitors like Tenderly, results in a powerful trade-off: you gain vendor-agnosticism, deep customization, and the ability to correlate RPC data with your broader application stack (e.g., database, CDN). However, this requires significant engineering effort to instrument, maintain, and synchronize data sources, often introducing a 5-15% overhead on monitoring infrastructure costs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, reduced complexity, and a single source of truth for blockchain interactions, choose an Integrated RPC. This is ideal for fast-moving protocols or teams with limited DevOps bandwidth. If you prioritize maximum control, cross-stack observability, and independence from any single RPC vendor, choose Separate Monitoring Tools. This suits large-scale enterprises, protocols with multi-chain deployments, or teams with established SRE practices willing to manage the integration tax.
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