Ankr excels at providing a fully automated, multi-chain staking experience designed for speed and developer convenience. Its core strength is a unified API and SDK that abstracts away node operations, allowing teams to integrate staking for assets like ETH, MATIC, and BNB in minutes. For example, its Eth2 staking service boasts a 99.9% uptime SLA and supports over 50,000 validators, making it ideal for protocols like Polygon or Avalanche that need to quickly offer liquid staking tokens (LSTs) without operational overhead.
LABS
Comparisons
Ankr vs P2P.org: Automated vs Custom StaaS
A technical analysis contrasting Ankr's API-driven, automated staking infrastructure for developers with P2P.org's white-glove, customizable node operations for institutions. Evaluates trade-offs between speed and control.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Automation vs. Customization Spectrum
Choosing a staking-as-a-service (StaaS) provider often comes down to a fundamental choice between streamlined automation and tailored control.
P2P.org takes a different approach by prioritizing deep customization and white-glove service for institutional clients. This strategy results in a trade-off: less self-service automation for greater control over validator configurations, geographic distribution, and compliance (e.g., specific MEV strategies or regulatory requirements). Their infrastructure supports bespoke deployments on networks like Solana, Cosmos, and Polkadot, often involving direct engineering collaboration to meet unique staking parameters and security postures.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid integration, developer velocity, and a hands-off operational model, choose Ankr. Its automated platform is built for scaling staking services quickly. If you prioritize granular control, custom infrastructure, and dedicated support for complex, high-value staking operations, choose P2P.org. The decision hinges on whether you value automation's speed or customization's precision.
tldr-summary
Ankr vs P2P.org: Automated vs Custom StaaS
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Ankr prioritizes automation and scale, while P2P.org focuses on institutional-grade customization and security.
01
Ankr: Automated Scale & Developer UX
Fully automated node deployment: One-click provisioning across 40+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche). This matters for dApps and protocols needing rapid, hands-off infrastructure scaling without deep DevOps overhead.
Unified API & RPC access: Single endpoint (rpc.ankr.com) with global load balancing and 99.9% SLA. This matters for developers building multi-chain applications who need reliable, simplified connectivity.
Cost-effective for variable loads: Pay-as-you-go pricing model with no long-term commitments. This matters for startups and growth-stage projects with fluctuating RPC and staking needs.
02
Ankr: Trade-off - Less Customization
Limited validator client choice: Primarily offers standardized, managed clients (e.g., Geth, Erigon). This is a drawback for institutions requiring specific, audited client configurations (e.g., Teku with custom slashing protection).
Shared infrastructure layer: RPC and staking services run on a shared, multi-tenant platform. This matters for enterprises with strict compliance needs (e.g., data sovereignty, dedicated hardware) that Ankr's cloud-native model may not fulfill.
03
P2P.org: Institutional-Grade Security
White-glove, custom deployment: Dedicated validator clusters with client diversity mandates (e.g., Lighthouse, Prysm, Teku). This matters for foundations and DAOs (like Lido, Rocket Pool) managing billions in TVL who require maximum slashing protection and audit trails.
Non-custodial key management: MPC (Multi-Party Computation) or HSM (Hardware Security Module) options for validator keys. This matters for regulated entities and funds that cannot use custodial staking services due to compliance.
Enterprise SLAs & dedicated support: 24/7 monitoring, on-call engineers, and financial guarantees. This matters for protocols with >$100M TVL where infrastructure downtime directly impacts protocol revenue and security.
04
P2P.org: Trade-off - Higher Friction & Cost
Longer onboarding and setup: Custom deployments require weeks of planning and integration vs. minutes. This is a drawback for rapid prototypes or small teams that need to validate a concept quickly.
Premium pricing model: Minimum commitments and higher costs due to dedicated resources and bespoke service. This matters for bootstrapped projects where infrastructure cost is a primary constraint over extreme security.
Less self-service: Reliance on account managers for configuration changes. This matters for agile engineering teams that prefer programmatic control over their entire stack via APIs and Terraform.
AUTOMATED VS CUSTOM STAKING-AS-A-SERVICE
Feature Comparison: Ankr vs P2P.org
Direct comparison of key operational and economic metrics for institutional staking providers.
| Metric | Ankr | P2P.org |
|---|---|---|
Primary Service Model | Automated, Self-Service Platform | Custom White-Globe Service |
Supported Networks | 40+ (Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, etc.) | 40+ (Ethereum, Cosmos, Polkadot, etc.) |
Commission Fee (Ethereum) | 10% of rewards | 7% of rewards |
Minimum Stake (Ethereum) | 0.1 ETH | 32 ETH (1 validator) |
Slashing Insurance | ||
MEV Rewards Distribution | 100% to staker | 90% to staker, 10% to operator |
Enterprise SLA & Dedicated Support | ||
Non-Custodial Key Management |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Ankr vs P2P.org: Automated vs Custom StaaS
Key strengths and trade-offs for infrastructure architects choosing between a fully automated service and a tailored, white-glove solution.
01
Ankr: Automated Scale & Speed
One-click deployment for 40+ chains via unified API. This matters for teams needing to launch and manage validator nodes across multiple ecosystems (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche) without dedicated DevOps. The platform's automated slashing protection and 99.9%+ uptime SLA reduce operational overhead significantly.
40+
Supported Chains
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
P2P.org: Institutional-Grade Security
Custom, air-gapped signing infrastructure and dedicated security audits for each client. This matters for foundations, DAOs, and custodians with >$100M in assets requiring bespoke key management, multi-sig setups, and insurance-backed slashing coverage. Compliance with institutional custody standards is a core focus.
$0
Slashing History
05
Ankr: Trade-off on Customization
Constrained by platform limits for non-standard validator configurations or chain implementations. This is a drawback for protocols with unique consensus requirements or those needing deep integration with proprietary security hardware. The service is optimized for breadth, not depth, per chain.
06
P2P.org: Trade-off on Speed & Cost
Longer onboarding cycles and higher minimums due to manual service model. This is a drawback for agile startups or projects needing to spin up validators immediately on a new chain. The premium, tailored service comes with associated costs and lead times not suited for all budgets.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Ankr vs P2P.org: Automated vs Custom StaaS
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs choosing a staking infrastructure provider.
01
Ankr: Developer-First Automation
Key Strength: Fully automated, multi-chain RPC and staking APIs. Offers a self-serve platform for rapid deployment. This matters for scaling dev teams that need to interact with 40+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche) without managing node infrastructure.
Trade-off: Standardized service tiers may lack the granular control required for large, protocol-specific validator configurations.
02
Ankr: Cost Predictability
Key Strength: Transparent, usage-based pricing for RPC and clear fee structures for staking services. This matters for budget-conscious projects that need to forecast infrastructure costs without surprise overhead from dedicated node operations.
Trade-off: The 'hands-off' model means less ability to optimize for maximum staking yield or performance beyond the provided service level.
03
P2P.org: Institutional-Grade Customization
Key Strength: Deep, white-glove service for large validators (>10,000 ETH) and protocols (like Lido, Rocket Pool). Offers bespoke MEV-boost relay configurations, slashing protection setups, and geographic distribution. This matters for foundations and DAOs where security and yield optimization are paramount.
Trade-off: Higher cost and complexity. Not designed for a developer spinning up a quick testnet node.
04
P2P.org: Non-Custodial Security & Governance
Key Strength: True non-custodial staking with user-controlled withdrawal credentials. Active in Ethereum consensus-layer governance (attesting to proposals). This matters for sovereign entities and treasuries that cannot compromise on custody or want to influence network direction.
Trade-off: Requires more technical oversight and responsibility from the client compared to a fully managed service.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Ankr for Speed & Simplicity
Verdict: The clear choice for rapid deployment and developer experience. Strengths: Ankr's fully automated, API-driven platform allows you to spin up a validator node in minutes. Their one-click deployment for 40+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, BNB Chain) eliminates DevOps overhead. The Ankr RPC Service provides instant, scalable access to blockchain data, crucial for dApp frontends. For teams that need to launch fast and avoid infrastructure management, Ankr's standardized service is superior. Trade-off: You sacrifice deep customization and direct hardware control for this speed.
P2P.org for Speed & Simplicity
Verdict: Slower initial setup, but offers more control within a managed framework. Strengths: While not fully automated, P2P.org provides a managed service with a higher degree of configurability. Their platform offers granular control over client selection (e.g., Geth vs Nethermind, Prysm vs Lighthouse) and monitoring tools. This is for teams who want more say in their stack than Ankr allows but still want the core infrastructure managed. The setup process involves more steps and consultation than Ankr's self-service model.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
A final breakdown of the automated simplicity versus custom control trade-off between Ankr and P2P.org.
Ankr excels at providing a turnkey, multi-chain staking experience for developers prioritizing speed and simplicity. Its unified API and SDKs, supporting over 40 chains including Ethereum, Polygon, and BNB Chain, allow for rapid integration and management. For example, its automated infrastructure boasts a 99.9% uptime SLA and handles the complexities of node operation, slashing protection, and reward distribution, freeing your team to focus on core protocol development.
P2P.org takes a fundamentally different approach by offering a white-glove, custom StaaS solution. This strategy results in a trade-off: higher initial setup complexity for superior performance and tailored support. P2P.org's strength lies in its dedicated validator clusters, custom MEV strategies for Ethereum, and direct access to its engineering team, which is ideal for large-scale institutional deployments managing billions in TVL that require specific compliance, geographic distribution, or performance guarantees.
The key trade-off is automation vs. customization. If your priority is developer velocity, a hands-off experience, and supporting a broad portfolio of L1s and L2s with a single integration, choose Ankr. If you prioritize maximum network performance, bespoke infrastructure, and direct expert partnership for a primary network like Ethereum or Solana where staking scale and optimization are critical, choose P2P.org.
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