Ankr excels at providing a broad, developer-first infrastructure layer because of its extensive node network and unified API. For example, its RPC services support over 40 chains, including Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon, and its liquid staking token, ankrETH, is integrated across major DeFi protocols like Aave and Curve. This extensive reach simplifies development for teams building cross-chain applications that require consistent staking yield and liquidity.
LABS
Comparisons
Ankr vs pSTAKE: Multi-Chain Staking as a Service
A technical comparison of two leading infrastructure-focused liquid staking providers, analyzing their SDKs, enterprise partnerships, and core approaches to securing Proof-of-Stake networks for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Infrastructure Layer for Liquid Staking
A technical comparison of Ankr and pSTAKE, two leading providers of Multi-Chain Staking as a Service, focusing on architectural trade-offs for protocol builders.
pSTAKE takes a different approach by focusing on deep, native integrations with specific Proof-of-Stake (PoS) chains like Cosmos and Persistence. This results in a trade-off: while its chain support is more curated, it offers direct, non-custodial staking through its pSTAKE app, allowing users to retain control of their keys. Its stkATOM token is a prime example, built using the Cosmos SDK's Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol for native composability within that ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment across a wide array of EVM and non-EVM chains with a single API, choose Ankr. Its infrastructure-as-a-service model prioritizes developer convenience and scalability. If you prioritize deep, secure, and native staking integrations within specific ecosystems like Cosmos or are building a product emphasizing non-custodial user experience, choose pSTAKE. Its architecture is optimized for trust-minimized yield within its supported networks.
tldr-summary
Ankr vs pSTAKE: Multi-Chain Staking as a Service
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating infrastructure providers.
01
Ankr's Edge: Infrastructure Breadth
Full-stack node services: Beyond staking, Ankr provides public RPCs, dedicated nodes, and subgraph indexing for 40+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Aptos). This matters for teams needing a single vendor for all node infrastructure, reducing integration complexity and operational overhead.
40+
Supported Chains
02
Ankr's Edge: Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs)
Native, chain-specific LSTs: Issues ankrETH, ankrMATIC, etc., which are integrated into native DeFi ecosystems (e.g., Aave, Curve). This matters for protocols building on a specific chain who need deep liquidity and composability with established money markets and DEXs.
$1B+
Historical Staked Value
04
pSTAKE's Edge: Dual-Asset Model
StkASSET architecture: Mints a staked representation (e.g., stkATOM) while the native asset remains staked, enabling simultaneous staking rewards and DeFi utility. This matters for maximizing capital efficiency without relying on a synthetic derivative, reducing smart contract dependency risk.
05
Choose Ankr For
Multi-chain application development where you need:
- A unified API for RPC, staking, and node services.
- Liquid staking tokens native to Ethereum, Polygon, or BNB Chain ecosystems.
- To avoid managing validator operations entirely.
06
Choose pSTAKE For
Cosmos-native protocol development where you need:
- Deep IBC integration for cross-chain staking positions.
- A dual-asset model to preserve native asset security while accessing DeFi.
- A solution built within the Cosmos SDK's governance and security model.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Ankr vs pSTAKE: Multi-Chain Staking as a Service
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for liquid staking infrastructure.
| Metric | Ankr Staking | pSTAKE |
|---|---|---|
Supported Blockchains | Ethereum, BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Fantom, Others | Ethereum, BNB Chain, Persistence, Cosmos Hub |
Native Liquid Staking Token | ankrETH, ankrBNB, ankrMATIC, ankrAVAX | stkBNB, stkATOM, stkXPRT |
Average Commission Fee | 10% on rewards | 10% on rewards |
Smart Contract Audits | Halborn, CertiK, Quantstamp | Halborn, CertiK |
Direct Staking Pool Access | ||
DeFi Integrations | Aave, Curve, Uniswap, PancakeSwap | PancakeSwap, Beefy Finance, Venus |
Governance Token | ANKR | PSTAKE |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Ankr vs pSTAKE
Ankr for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for composability and broad DeFi integrations. Strengths: Ankr's aETHb (liquid staking token) is widely integrated across major DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Uniswap. Its Ethereum RPC service is a critical infrastructure backbone for dApp developers, offering high reliability and global node distribution. The platform supports staking for over 25+ chains, providing a unified API for multi-chain development. Trade-offs: The staking yield is generally lower than pSTAKE's, as it prioritizes security and decentralization via a distributed node network over maximal yield extraction.
pSTAKE for DeFi
Verdict: Optimized for yield-maximizing strategies and Cosmos ecosystem synergy. Strengths: pSTAKE's stkASSETs are natively minted on the issuing chain (e.g., stkATOM on Persistence), enabling direct use in that chain's DeFi. It employs a dual-token model (stkASSET + pSTAKE governance token) for enhanced utility. Its architecture is purpose-built for restaking and leveraged staking strategies via integrations with protocols like Mars Protocol. Trade-offs: Its LSTs have less adoption in the broader, non-Cosmos DeFi landscape compared to Ankr's tokens, limiting composability on Ethereum mainnet.
ANKR VS PSTAKE
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security Models
This analysis dissects the core architectural choices and security guarantees of Ankr and pSTAKE, two leading Multi-Chain Staking as a Service providers, to inform high-stakes infrastructure decisions.
No, pSTAKE's architecture is more decentralized. pSTAKE's liquid staking tokens (stkASSETs) are minted via smart contracts on the destination chain (e.g., stkATOM on Persistence), governed by the protocol's DAO. Ankr's model is more centralized, relying on its own validator infrastructure and a centralized relayer for its ankrMATIC and ankrAVAX products, though its ankrETH v2 on Ethereum uses a decentralized oracle network. For architects prioritizing censorship resistance, pSTAKE's smart contract-centric model offers stronger decentralization guarantees.
ecosystem-support
Ankr vs pSTAKE: Multi-Chain Staking as a Service
Ecosystem & Developer Tooling
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for infrastructure teams choosing a staking-as-a-service provider.
01
Ankr: Superior Node Infrastructure & RPC Access
Core strength: Ankr operates one of the largest global RPC and node networks, supporting 40+ chains including Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche. This provides developers with reliable, high-uptime (>99.9%) infrastructure for building dApps. This matters for teams that need a single, unified API endpoint for multi-chain queries and transactions, reducing operational overhead.
02
Ankr: Advanced Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs)
Core strength: Ankr's liquid staking tokens (e.g., ankrETH, ankrMATIC) are integrated with major DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Uniswap. This creates immediate composability and yield opportunities for staked assets. This matters for protocols and DAOs looking to maximize capital efficiency by using their staked collateral across the DeFi ecosystem.
03
pSTAKE: Deep Cosmos & Persistence Ecosystem Focus
Core strength: pSTAKE is natively built on the Persistence chain and is deeply integrated with the Cosmos IBC ecosystem. It offers native liquid staking for Cosmos SDK chains (like Cosmos Hub, Osmosis) and supports staking derivatives for BNB Chain. This matters for projects primarily operating within the Cosmos interchain, seeking seamless IBC transfers and governance participation for their liquid staked assets.
04
pSTAKE: Non-Custodial Security Model
Core strength: pSTAKE employs a non-custodial, smart contract-based model where user funds are never held by the protocol. Staked assets remain in a secure, audited contract, and liquid staking tokens are minted on a 1:1 basis. This matters for institutional validators and security-conscious teams who prioritize self-custody and transparent, on-chain verification of asset backing.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to help CTOs and architects choose the right multi-chain staking infrastructure for their protocol.
Ankr excels at providing a broad, enterprise-grade RPC and staking infrastructure because of its extensive node network and developer-first API suite. For example, with over 30 supported chains (including Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon) and a proven 99.9%+ uptime SLA, it offers a one-stop shop for teams needing reliable data access alongside liquid staking via ankrETH. Its AVSD (Ankr Verified Stake Delegation) framework also provides a unique security layer for institutional validators.
pSTAKE takes a different approach by focusing on deep, native integrations with specific Proof-of-Stake ecosystems like Cosmos and Persistence. This results in a trade-off: less chain breadth but superior functionality within its core networks. pSTAKE's strength is enabling non-custodial, liquid staking of native assets (e.g., ATOM, OSMO) without wrapping, which can reduce smart contract risk and improve composability within those ecosystems. Its TVL, while smaller than Ankr's overall footprint, is concentrated and growing within its targeted chains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is infrastructure breadth, developer tooling, and a unified API for multiple chains, choose Ankr. It is the pragmatic choice for a CTO building a multi-chain dApp that needs reliable RPCs and staking services under one roof. If you prioritize deep, non-custodial liquid staking within specific PoS ecosystems like Cosmos or are building a cross-chain DeFi primitive native to those chains, choose pSTAKE. Its architecture is optimized for maximal capital efficiency and composability within its core networks.
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