Chainstack excels at providing dedicated, customizable infrastructure for private and consortium networks because its core architecture is built for sovereignty. It offers dedicated nodes with full root access, support for private RPC endpoints, and advanced features like on-demand node provisioning and multi-cloud deployment (AWS, Azure, GCP). This is critical for projects like Hyperledger Besu or Quorum deployments where data privacy, custom consensus, and network governance are non-negotiable.
LABS
Comparisons
Chainstack vs Infura for Private Blockchain Networks
A technical analysis comparing Chainstack and Infura as infrastructure solutions for deploying and managing private, consortium, and permissioned enterprise blockchain networks. Focus on architectural differences, cost models, and enterprise-grade features.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Private Network Infrastructure Decision
Choosing between Chainstack and Infura for private networks hinges on a core trade-off: enterprise-grade control versus developer-centric convenience.
Infura takes a different approach by optimizing for speed and reliability in accessing public networks, extending its managed service model to private deployments via Infura Transactions and dedicated endpoints. This results in a trade-off: superior ease-of-use and a familiar developer experience from its public network dominance, but less granular control over the underlying infrastructure compared to a self-managed node. Its strength lies in rapid prototyping and teams already embedded in the Infura ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, custom configurations, and compliance for a production-grade consortium chain, choose Chainstack. If you prioritize developer velocity, leveraging existing tooling, and a managed service for a private EVM network, choose Infura. The decision fundamentally aligns with whether you need a fully customizable foundation or a streamlined, opinionated pipeline.
tldr-summary
Chainstack vs Infura for Private Networks
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of core strengths for enterprise-grade private blockchain deployments.
01
Chainstack's Edge: Native Multi-Cloud & Hybrid Support
Specific advantage: Deploy nodes across AWS, GCP, Azure, or on-premise from a single dashboard. This matters for enterprises with strict data sovereignty requirements or those needing to avoid vendor lock-in. Supports Hyperledger Besu, Quorum, and Corda out-of-the-box.
02
Infura's Edge: Ethereum Ecosystem Integration
Specific advantage: Deep, first-party integration with the core Ethereum stack (EVM chains, IPFS, StarkNet). This matters for teams building public-facing dApps that may need to interact with both public mainnets and private instances. The tooling (Truffle, Hardhat) and documentation are optimized for this flow.
03
Chainstack's Edge: Granular Permissioning & Observability
Specific advantage: Fine-grained RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) and detailed audit logs for all node and API activity. This matters for regulated industries (finance, healthcare) where compliance (SOC2, ISO 27001) and tracking every access request is non-negotiable.
04
Infura's Edge: Developer Velocity & Scale
Specific advantage: Handles billions of daily requests across its public network, proving reliability at massive scale. The free tier and predictable, usage-based pricing (with committed discounts) matter for startups and protocols that need to scale rapidly without upfront infrastructure overhead.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Chainstack vs Infura for Private Networks
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for deploying and managing private blockchain infrastructure.
| Metric / Feature | Chainstack | Infura |
|---|---|---|
Dedicated Node for Private Network | ||
Multi-Cloud Deployment (AWS, GCP, Azure) | ||
Bring Your Own Cloud (BYOC) Support | ||
Enterprise SLA Guarantee | 99.9% | 99.9% |
Private Network Deployment Time | < 10 minutes | Not Applicable |
Supported Consensus for Private Nets | PoA, IBFT, QBFT | Ethereum-based PoA |
Dedicated Support Tier Pricing | $1,500/month+ | Custom Quote |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Chainstack vs Infura: Private Network Analysis
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for deploying and managing private blockchain infrastructure.
01
Chainstack Pro: Dedicated Node Architecture
Full hardware isolation: Dedicated bare-metal or cloud instances per client, ensuring no shared resources. This provides predictable performance and enhanced security for sensitive data, crucial for enterprise consortiums and regulated DeFi applications.
02
Chainstack Pro: Multi-Cloud & On-Prem Deployment
Deploy anywhere: Supports AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and private data centers. This avoids vendor lock-in and meets strict data sovereignty requirements (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA). Essential for financial institutions and government projects.
03
Infura Pro: Developer Velocity & Tooling
Seamless Ethereum integration: Native compatibility with MetaMask, Truffle, Hardhat, and the broader Ethereum toolchain. Offers a faster path to production for teams already building on public EVM chains who need a private testnet or staging environment.
04
Infura Pro: Consolidated Management
Single dashboard for public & private: Manage access to both public mainnets (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) and private dedicated nodes from one interface. Reduces operational overhead for teams running hybrid architectures.
05
Chainstack Con: Higher Baseline Cost
Premium pricing for isolation: Dedicated infrastructure starts at a higher entry point than shared services. This can be prohibitive for early-stage startups or projects with unpredictable, low-volume needs.
06
Infura Con: Shared Infrastructure Model
Potential for "noisy neighbor" effects: Even on dedicated tiers, underlying cloud resources may be shared. For use cases requiring guaranteed, consistent throughput (e.g., high-frequency settlement), this introduces performance risk.
pros-cons-b
Chainstack vs Infura
Infura: Pros and Cons for Private Networks
Key strengths and trade-offs for enterprise-grade private blockchain deployments at a glance.
01
Infura's Pro: Developer Familiarity
Seamless migration from public networks: Uses the same JSON-RPC endpoints as Infura's public services. This matters for teams with existing dApps on Ethereum Mainnet or Polygon who need to onboard quickly with minimal code changes.
02
Infura's Pro: ConsenSys Ecosystem Integration
Tight coupling with MetaMask and Truffle Suite: Enables direct private network configuration in MetaMask and streamlined deployments via Truffle. This matters for projects heavily invested in the ConsenSys toolchain seeking a unified workflow.
03
Infura's Con: Limited Network Flexibility
Primarily optimized for Ethereum and EVM chains: While supporting Hyperledger Besu, options for other protocols (e.g., Corda, Quorum legacy) are limited. This matters for enterprises with multi-protocol strategies or specific non-EVM compliance requirements.
04
Infura's Con: Opaque Infrastructure Control
Managed service with less node-level visibility: Offers less granular control over Geth/Besu client configurations and server specs compared to dedicated solutions. This matters for teams needing fine-tuned performance optimization or specific security hardening.
05
Chainstack's Pro: Multi-Protocol & Hybrid Support
Broad protocol support beyond EVM: Native deployment for Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, and Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, and dedicated Substrate chains. This matters for consortiums or enterprises that require flexibility across permissioned and public ledgers.
06
Chainstack's Pro: Dedicated Node Granularity
Full root access and client configuration control: Deploy dedicated nodes with customizable hardware specs, client versions (Geth, Erigon, Besu), and network configurations. This matters for high-throughput applications needing predictable performance and deep infrastructure oversight.
CHAINSTACK VS INFURA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security
A technical comparison of Chainstack and Infura's underlying architectures, security models, and performance for private, permissioned blockchain deployments.
Chainstack offers a more dedicated architecture for private networks. It provides dedicated, single-tenant nodes with isolated infrastructure, giving you full control over the genesis block, consensus rules, and validator set. Infura's core architecture is optimized for public network access; while it offers dedicated endpoints, its private network solution is more of a managed service layer on top of its public infrastructure, offering less low-level configurability for the chain itself.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Chainstack for Enterprise IT
Verdict: The definitive choice for private, permissioned networks. Strengths: Chainstack is architected for private deployments. It offers dedicated node clusters, granular role-based access control (RBAC), and seamless integration with enterprise identity providers (e.g., Okta, Auth0). Its support for Hyperledger Besu, Quorum, and Corda is superior, providing the audit trails, privacy, and consortium governance required for B2B applications. The platform's VPC peering and private link capabilities ensure your blockchain data never traverses the public internet. Key Metric: Full control over network participants and transaction visibility.
Infura for Enterprise IT
Verdict: A secondary tool, not a primary platform. Strengths: Infura's core strength remains public chain access. Its IT value is as a reliable, high-availability gateway to Ethereum Mainnet or IPFS for hybrid applications. For a purely private network, it lacks the dedicated infrastructure and permissioning models. Use it to complement a private chain with oracle data or public settlement layers, not to host the private chain itself.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A decisive breakdown of which infrastructure provider is the optimal choice for deploying and managing private blockchain networks.
Chainstack excels at providing a dedicated, high-performance environment for private networks because its architecture is purpose-built for enterprise isolation. For example, its dedicated node offering guarantees resources are not shared, which is critical for predictable performance and security in consortium chains or private EVM/Polygon Edge deployments. This model supports custom consensus mechanisms and advanced privacy features like Tessera for Quorum, making it a turnkey solution for complex enterprise requirements.
Infura takes a different approach by leveraging its massive, optimized public network infrastructure to power private deployments. This results in a trade-off: you gain the reliability and developer tooling (like the robust Infura API, Truffle, and Hardhat integration) proven by its 99.9%+ SLA for public Ethereum, but with less granular control over the underlying infrastructure compared to a fully dedicated setup. Its private network service is effectively a managed, isolated segment of its cloud.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum control, custom consensus, and dedicated resource isolation for a high-value consortium or enterprise network, choose Chainstack. If you prioritize leveraging battle-tested public chain reliability, seamless developer experience, and faster initial setup for a private EVM-compatible chain, choose Infura. For protocols where the private network is a core, long-term asset (e.g., a supply chain ledger), Chainstack's model is superior. For teams needing to rapidly prototype or deploy a private testnet that mirrors mainnet conditions, Infura's streamlined path is ideal.
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