Proprietary API providers like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode excel at delivering a managed, high-performance service with predictable SLAs. They handle node operations, scaling, and maintenance, offering developers instant access to multi-chain data with high uptime (e.g., >99.9%). This is ideal for teams needing to launch quickly without deep DevOps investment, as seen in rapid deployments on networks like Arbitrum and Base where these services dominate.
LABS
Comparisons
Vendor Lock-in: Proprietary API vs Open Indexing Standard
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects on the long-term strategic risks and benefits of using closed APIs versus open indexing standards for NFT marketplace infrastructure.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Strategic Infrastructure Dilemma
Choosing between a proprietary API provider and an open indexing standard is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's flexibility, cost, and long-term resilience.
Open indexing standards like The Graph's subgraphs and Subsquid's datasets take a different approach by decentralizing data access. Developers write custom logic to index specific on-chain events into queryable APIs. This results in a trade-off: initial setup complexity for long-term sovereignty, censorship resistance, and potentially lower operational costs at scale by avoiding vendor markup on high-volume queries.
The key trade-off: If your priority is time-to-market and operational simplicity for a production application, choose a proprietary API. If you prioritize protocol resilience, cost control at scale, and avoiding single points of failure, choose an open indexing standard. The former outsources risk for convenience; the latter internalizes complexity for independence.
tldr-summary
Proprietary API vs. Open Indexing Standard
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
The core trade-off between a managed service and a self-serve protocol for blockchain data access.
01
Proprietary API: Speed to Market
Managed Infrastructure: No need to run nodes, manage infra, or build indexing logic. Services like Alchemy, QuickNode, and Infura abstract away complexity. This matters for rapid prototyping or teams lacking dedicated DevOps resources.
< 1 sec
Avg. API Latency
03
Open Standard: Protocol Portability
Avoid Lock-in: Standards like The Graph's subgraphs or Subsquid's datasets can be deployed across multiple indexing services (e.g., The Graph Network, Subsquid's Aquarium). This matters for long-term architectural flexibility and mitigating vendor risk.
30,000+
Deployed Subgraphs
05
Proprietary API: The Hidden Cost
Vendor Lock-in Risk: Your application's data layer is tied to one provider's API schema, pricing, and SLAs. Migration requires significant rework. This matters for protocols planning multi-chain expansion or those concerned with centralization.
06
Open Standard: The Operational Overhead
Developer Responsibility: Requires expertise in subgraph/schema design, indexing performance, and node operation if self-hosting. This matters for small teams where engineering bandwidth is a constraint, despite lower long-term costs.
VENDOR LOCK-IN: PROPRIETARY API VS OPEN INDEXING STANDARD
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and operational metrics for blockchain data access.
| Metric | Proprietary API (e.g., Alchemy, QuickNode) | Open Indexing Standard (The Graph Protocol) |
|---|---|---|
Data Portability & Migration | ||
Protocol-Level Query Standard | ||
Subgraph/Indexer Ecosystem | 0 | 1,000+ |
Cost Model Control | Vendor-Defined | Indexer-Market Driven |
Query Pricing (Avg. per 1M) | $200-500 | $50-150 |
Uptime SLA Guarantee | 99.9% | Decentralized Network |
Custom Data Schema Support | Limited to API | Fully Programmable |
pros-cons-a
Vendor Lock-in: Proprietary API vs Open Indexing Standard
Pros and Cons: Proprietary API (e.g., Alchemy, Moralis, QuickNode)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs choosing between managed services and open-source infrastructure.
01
Proprietary API: Time-to-Market
Specific advantage: Pre-built endpoints for NFTs, DeFi, and wallets (e.g., Alchemy's NFT API, Moralis' Streams). This reduces initial development time from months to days for features like wallet balance lookups or real-time transaction alerts. This matters for startups and hackathon projects needing to validate an idea quickly without deep infra expertise.
02
Proprietary API: Reliability & SLAs
Specific advantage: Guaranteed uptime (e.g., 99.9% SLA) with global CDN, automatic failover, and 24/7 dedicated support. Providers like QuickNode manage node health, upgrades, and peak traffic scaling. This matters for enterprise applications and high-volume dApps where downtime directly translates to lost revenue and user trust.
03
Open Standard: Cost Control & Predictability
Specific advantage: Avoid per-request pricing models. With standards like The Graph's subgraphs or TrueBlocks, you pay for hosted service or run your own indexer. This provides predictable, often lower long-term costs at scale. This matters for protocols with heavy query loads (e.g., on-chain analytics dashboards) and teams wanting to cap operational expenses.
04
Open Standard: Portability & Future-Proofing
Specific advantage: No single-point-of-failure dependency. Your indexing logic (e.g., a subgraph schema) can be redeployed across multiple node providers (The Graph Network, Subsquid, self-hosted). This matters for long-term protocol development and mitigating business risk, ensuring you aren't locked into one vendor's roadmap, pricing, or potential service discontinuation.
pros-cons-b
Vendor Lock-in: Proprietary API vs Open Indexing Standard
Pros and Cons: Open Indexing Standard (e.g., The Graph Subgraphs)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating long-term data infrastructure dependencies.
01
Proprietary API: Speed & Simplicity
Rapid deployment: Pre-built APIs (e.g., Alchemy NFT API, Moralis Streams) offer instant, managed access to indexed data, bypassing months of development. This matters for MVP launches or teams with limited DevOps resources. Guaranteed SLAs: Providers offer uptime guarantees (e.g., 99.9%) and dedicated support, critical for production applications where reliability is non-negotiable.
02
Proprietary API: The Lock-in Risk
Architectural dependency: Your application's core data layer is tied to a single vendor's roadmap, pricing, and performance. Cost unpredictability: Usage-based pricing can scale unpredictably with user growth (e.g., from $1K to $50K/month). This matters for scaling protocols where data costs directly impact unit economics. Migration away requires a full re-architecture.
03
Open Standard: Protocol Sovereignty
Eliminate single points of failure: Deploy subgraphs (The Graph) or indexers (Subsquid) across multiple decentralized networks or self-host. This matters for DeFi protocols requiring censorship resistance and uptime guarantees beyond any one company. Future-proof data models: Your indexing logic is portable across node providers (e.g., switching from Hosted Service to The Graph Decentralized Network).
04
Open Standard: Operational Overhead
Developer responsibility: Requires in-house expertise in GraphQL, subgraph development, and node operations. Higher initial time-to-market: Building and optimizing a subgraph for complex logic (e.g., Uniswap V3 concentrated liquidity) can take weeks. This matters for small teams where engineering bandwidth is the primary constraint. Ongoing maintenance (e.g., handling chain reorgs) is your team's duty.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Proprietary API (e.g., Alchemy, QuickNode) for Architects
Verdict: Ideal for rapid MVP launch and core protocol development. Strengths: Zero infrastructure overhead, guaranteed SLAs, and deep ecosystem integrations (e.g., Alchemy's Webhooks, QuickNode's add-ons) let you focus on smart contract logic. You get battle-tested reliability for core operations like transaction broadcasting and event listening without diverting engineering resources. Trade-off: Long-term, you cede control over data schema, query performance, and cost predictability. Migrating off their stack later is a significant engineering lift.
Open Indexing Standard (e.g., The Graph, SubQuery) for Architects
Verdict: Essential for long-term protocol sovereignty and custom data needs. Strengths: Decouples your data layer from a single vendor. Using a subgraph on The Graph or a SubQuery project creates a portable, community-auditable data schema. This is critical for protocols needing bespoke analytics, complex historical queries, or planning to deploy on multiple L2s/L1s. Trade-off: Requires upfront investment to design and host the indexer (self-hosted or decentralized network). You manage performance and uptime.
VENDOR LOCK-IN ANALYSIS
Migration Path: From Proprietary API to Open Standard
Choosing between a proprietary API (like Alchemy, Infura) and an open indexing standard (like The Graph, SubQuery) is a foundational infrastructure decision. This comparison breaks down the key trade-offs in performance, cost, control, and long-term flexibility for teams managing production workloads.
For complex historical queries, The Graph is often faster, while Alchemy excels at real-time data. The Graph's subgraphs are optimized for aggregated, indexed data (e.g., "total DEX volume last month"), delivering results in milliseconds. Alchemy's Enhanced APIs provide low-latency access to raw, real-time chain state and mempool data. For simple eth_getBalance calls, their performance is comparable, but complex analytical queries favor The Graph's pre-indexed approach.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between a proprietary API and an open indexing standard is a foundational decision that balances control against flexibility.
Proprietary APIs excel at providing a managed, high-performance service with predictable SLAs. Because the vendor controls the entire stack—from node infrastructure to query engine—they can guarantee high uptime (e.g., 99.9%+) and optimize for specific data models. For example, services like Alchemy and Infura offer sub-second latency for common queries like eth_getLogs, abstracting away the immense complexity of running archive nodes. This allows your team to focus on application logic rather than data pipeline maintenance.
Open Indexing Standards like The Graph's subgraph standard take a different approach by decoupling data indexing from a single provider. This results in a trade-off: initial setup is more complex, but you gain protocol-level data portability and censorship resistance. Your indexed data, defined in a subgraph manifest, can be served by any Indexer in the decentralized network, preventing vendor lock-in. This model has secured over $1.5B in Total Value Locked (TVL) for applications relying on its verifiable data, demonstrating trust in its decentralized guarantees.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, guaranteed performance, and operational simplicity for a production application, choose a Proprietary API. If you prioritize data sovereignty, long-term protocol resilience, and censorship-resistant architecture—critical for DeFi or DAO tooling—choose an Open Indexing Standard. For many teams, a hybrid strategy is optimal: using a managed API for rapid prototyping and core reads, while building mission-critical, composable data feeds on an open standard.
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