InfStones excels at providing a massive, protocol-agnostic footprint with deep multi-chain support. Their platform supports over 80+ blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana, and Aptos, offering a one-stop shop for teams managing diverse validator and RPC needs. This scale is backed by a global network of data centers, which is crucial for protocols requiring low-latency node deployment in specific geographic regions for compliance or performance.
LABS
Comparisons
InfStones vs Chainstack for Node Infrastructure
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating dedicated node providers. We analyze deployment speed, customization depth, performance SLAs, and cost structures to determine the optimal choice for high-throughput dApps, validators, and enterprise deployments.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Node Supremacy
A data-driven comparison of InfStones and Chainstack, two leading node infrastructure providers, to guide strategic infrastructure decisions.
Chainstack takes a different approach by prioritizing developer experience and operational simplicity within a curated ecosystem. Their platform offers a streamlined interface, robust APIs, and powerful tools like GraphQL subscriptions and WebSocket endpoints out-of-the-box. This results in a trade-off: while their supported chain list is more curated (e.g., Ethereum, Polygon, Starknet), the developer tooling and documented reliability (advertised 99.9% SLA) accelerate time-to-market for applications built on those networks.
The key trade-off: If your priority is breadth and geographic control across a vast array of L1s and L2s, choose InfStones. If you prioritize developer velocity, deep tooling, and operational simplicity on major EVM and non-EVM chains, choose Chainstack. Your decision hinges on whether you need a global infrastructure army or a precision-engineered deployment platform.
tldr-summary
InfStones vs Chainstack
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core strengths and trade-offs to guide your node infrastructure decision.
01
InfStones: Multi-Chain Scale & Customization
Specializes in high-throughput, multi-chain deployments: Supports 80+ blockchains (Solana, Sui, Aptos, Polygon). This matters for protocols and exchanges needing a single provider for diverse ecosystems. Offers bare-metal access and custom configurations, crucial for performance-sensitive dApps requiring low-latency validation.
02
Chainstack: Developer Simplicity & Speed
Optimized for rapid prototyping and deployment: One-click node deployment across 30+ networks (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base). This matters for startups and developers who need to launch fast without deep DevOps. Features like GraphQL for Ethereum and dedicated archival nodes streamline complex data queries.
03
InfStones: Advanced Staking & Validation
Enterprise-grade staking infrastructure: A top-5 validator by total value secured across chains like Ethereum, Cosmos, and Avalanche. This matters for institutional stakers and foundations requiring high reliability and slashing protection. Provides dedicated HSM integration and MEV-boost relays for validators.
04
Chainstack: Predictable Pricing & Managed Services
Transparent, usage-based pricing model: Clear cost per compute unit, avoiding surprise bills from variable cloud costs. This matters for CTOs managing tight budgets. Offers fully managed services with 99.9% SLA, reducing operational overhead for teams without dedicated SREs.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
InfStones vs Chainstack: Node Infrastructure Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for enterprise node infrastructure providers.
| Metric / Feature | InfStones | Chainstack |
|---|---|---|
Supported Chains (Count) | 80+ | 30+ |
Global Node Locations | 20+ | 25+ |
Dedicated Node SLA | 99.9% | 99.9% |
Shared Node Pricing (Monthly) | $200+ | $89+ |
Multi-Cloud Deployment | ||
Free Tier Available | ||
On-Premise Deployment | ||
Managed Validator Services |
pros-cons-a
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
InfStones vs Chainstack: Node Infrastructure Pros and Cons
A data-driven breakdown of strengths and trade-offs for two leading node providers. Use this to align your infrastructure choice with your protocol's specific requirements.
01
InfStones: Breadth & Specialization
Extensive blockchain support: Supports 80+ chains, including niche L1s and high-throughput networks like Aptos and Sui. This matters for protocols building multi-chain applications or requiring access to emerging ecosystems.
Validator focus: Offers dedicated staking and validator services for 40+ PoS chains. Critical for projects like Lido or Rocket Pool that need reliable, high-uptime infrastructure for delegation.
02
InfStones: Enterprise-Grade Hardware
High-performance bare metal: Provides dedicated physical servers with NVMe SSDs and high CPU core counts. This matters for demanding use cases like running an Ethereum archive node, a Solana RPC endpoint under load, or a high-frequency trading bot on Avalanche.
Global low-latency network: 150+ locations worldwide, optimized for geographic redundancy and sub-100ms API response times.
03
Chainstack: Developer Experience & Simplicity
Unified API & intuitive UI: Single control plane for deploying and managing nodes across multiple chains. This matters for developer teams prioritizing speed of iteration and reducing DevOps overhead for protocols like Polygon or Arbitrum.
Rapid prototyping: Free tier and pay-as-you-go pricing allow for quick testing of concepts on networks like Base or Optimism without upfront commitment.
04
Chainstack: Cost Predictability & Elasticity
Transparent, usage-based pricing: Clear per-request and compute-hour costs, unlike opaque enterprise quotes. This matters for startups and projects with variable traffic, such as NFT marketplaces or wallet providers, who need to scale infrastructure costs with user growth.
Managed scalability: Auto-scaling node clusters handle traffic spikes without manual intervention, crucial for dApps during token launches or major NFT mints.
05
InfStones: The Trade-Off (Complexity & Cost)
Higher barrier to entry: Enterprise-focused sales process and custom quotes can be slower for smaller teams. Less suitable for a solo developer building a simple dApp on a single chain like Ethereum.
Potential cost overhead: Premium hardware and global footprint come at a price. Overkill for projects with predictable, low-to-moderate RPC request volumes.
06
Chainstack: The Trade-Off (Depth & Control)
Generalized infrastructure: While supporting 30+ chains, may lack deep, specialized configurations for ultra-high-performance validator setups required by protocols like EigenLayer or Babylon.
Less hardware granularity: Primarily offers cloud-based, shared, or dedicated virtual instances. May not match the raw performance of InfStones' bare-metal servers for latency-sensitive applications like MEV searchers.
pros-cons-b
A DATA-DRIVEN COMPARISON
InfStones vs Chainstack: Node Infrastructure Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and architects choosing between two leading node providers.
01
InfStones: Global Scale & Protocol Breadth
Specific advantage: Supports 80+ blockchain protocols across 30+ cloud regions. This matters for teams building multi-chain dApps (e.g., DeFi aggregators on Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche) who require a single, unified provider for global, low-latency access.
80+
Protocols
30+
Cloud Regions
03
InfStones: Cons - Enterprise Pricing Opacity
Specific trade-off: Public pricing is less transparent; custom enterprise quotes are standard. This matters for startups or projects with fixed budgets under $50K/month who need predictable, upfront costs without lengthy sales cycles.
04
Chainstack: Developer Experience & Simplicity
Specific advantage: Intuitive UI/API and predictable, consumption-based pricing starting at $49/month. This matters for agile engineering teams (e.g., NFT minting platforms, Web3 gaming studios) who need to spin up Elastic Ethereum or Polygon nodes in minutes without DevOps overhead.
< 3 min
Node Deployment
06
Chainstack: Cons - Niche Protocol Gaps
Specific trade-off: Supports ~20 protocols vs. InfStones' 80+. This matters for teams exploring or building on emerging chains (e.g., Aptos, Sui, Celestia) or needing access to more obscure networks for data indexing or bridging services.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Use Case Analysis: When to Choose Which
InfStones for Speed & Scale
Verdict: The performance-first choice for high-throughput applications. Strengths: Offers dedicated bare-metal servers, global low-latency network, and high-performance RPC endpoints. Benchmarks often show sub-100ms response times for Solana and Polygon RPCs. Ideal for trading bots, high-frequency DeFi arbitrage, and real-time data indexing where every millisecond impacts profitability. Trade-offs: Premium performance comes at a higher cost. Requires more hands-on configuration to optimize for specific chains like Avalanche or Sui.
Chainstack for Speed & Scale
Verdict: A strong managed alternative for predictable, scalable throughput. Strengths: Provides elastic, auto-scaling node clusters with load balancing. Their Global Elastic Nodes for Ethereum and Polygon offer reliable performance for dApps with variable load. Better suited for applications that experience sudden traffic spikes, like NFT mint events on Arbitrum or Base. Trade-offs: While fast, peak performance may not match tuned bare-metal. Multi-chain management is simpler but less customizable than dedicated setups.
NODE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and SLAs
A technical breakdown of InfStones and Chainstack's underlying architectures, performance guarantees, and service-level agreements for enterprise blockchain node deployment.
InfStones offers superior global coverage with nodes in 20+ regions. This extensive geographic distribution is critical for low-latency access and redundancy. Chainstack provides strong coverage across major cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure) but typically in fewer primary regions. For protocols requiring global, low-latency endpoints (e.g., DeFi front-ends, gaming APIs), InfStones' footprint is a key advantage. Chainstack's model is optimized for reliability within core cloud zones.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between InfStones and Chainstack hinges on your team's need for breadth versus depth and operational control.
InfStones excels at providing a vast, one-stop-shop for node deployment across over 80 blockchains, including major L1s like Ethereum, Solana, and emerging L2s. This is powered by their proprietary InfStones 2.0 platform, which abstracts away much of the underlying hardware complexity. For teams needing to launch and manage a diverse portfolio of nodes quickly—such as a multi-chain DeFi protocol or a data indexing service—this breadth and automation is a significant advantage, reducing the time-to-node from days to minutes.
Chainstack takes a different approach by focusing on deep, enterprise-grade reliability and developer experience for a more curated set of chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, etc.). This results in a trade-off: less total ecosystem coverage, but superior performance and support for the chains they do support. Their architecture emphasizes high availability, with a 99.9% SLA on their Elastic and Dedicated nodes, and deep integrations with developer tools like Hardhat and Foundry, making them a favorite for teams building mission-critical dApps where predictable latency and robust support are non-negotiable.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment across a wide array of blockchains with a unified API and dashboard, choose InfStones. This is ideal for R&D, multi-chain explorers, or services like Staking-as-a-Service. If you prioritize deep, reliable infrastructure with premium support for core EVM/Solana ecosystems and need granular control over node configuration, choose Chainstack. This suits high-value DeFi protocols, institutional staking operations, and applications where consistent sub-second block propagation is critical to user experience.
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