Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
LABS
Comparisons

Scheduled vs Triggered Updates: Oracles

A technical comparison of scheduled (push) and triggered (pull) oracle update models, analyzing performance, cost, security, and ideal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Core Oracle Update Dilemma

Choosing between scheduled and triggered oracle updates is a foundational architectural decision that impacts cost, latency, and data freshness for your protocol.

Scheduled Updates (e.g., Chainlink's Heartbeat) excel at providing predictable, high-frequency data for applications requiring consistent state synchronization. They operate on a fixed interval, ensuring new price data for assets like ETH/USD is pushed on-chain every block or every N seconds, regardless of market volatility. This model is ideal for perpetual DEXs like GMX or lending protocols like Aave, where liquidations depend on timely, regular price feeds. The trade-off is cost inefficiency during periods of low activity, as updates occur even when unnecessary.

Triggered Updates (e.g., Pyth Network's Pull Oracle) take a different approach by updating only when an on-chain user transaction explicitly requests fresh data. This results in significantly lower baseline costs and protocol-owned update control. Protocols like Synthetix Perps v3 leverage this for gas-efficient, on-demand pricing. The trade-off is higher latency for the initial data request in a new block and reliance on user activity to trigger updates, which can be a risk during low-liquidity events or network congestion.

The key trade-off: If your priority is ultra-low latency and guaranteed data freshness for critical functions like liquidations, choose Scheduled Updates. If you prioritize minimizing operational gas costs and can tolerate a one-block delay for data resolution, choose Triggered Updates. The decision fundamentally hinges on your protocol's risk model and economic design.

tldr-summary
Scheduled vs Triggered Updates

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

A direct comparison of oracle update mechanisms for CTOs and architects. Choose based on your protocol's latency, cost, and data freshness requirements.

01

Scheduled Updates (e.g., Chainlink Keepers, Pyth)

Predictable Cost & Execution: Fixed, regular update intervals (e.g., every block, 400ms). This matters for DEXs and lending protocols where predictable state transitions are critical for liquidations and price feeds.

Lower On-Demand Gas Burden: Costs are amortized across all users of the data feed. Ideal for high-frequency, widely-shared data like ETH/USD.

Trade-off: Can't react to off-cycle events, leading to potential arbitrage if markets move between updates.

02

Triggered Updates (e.g., API3 dAPIs, Custom Oracles)

Event-Driven Freshness: Updates occur on-demand based on predefined conditions (e.g., price deviation > 0.5%). This matters for options protocols and prediction markets where settlement depends on precise, timely data.

Gas Efficiency for Low-Volume Data: Pay only when your specific application needs an update. Best for niche data feeds or proprietary indices with sporadic usage.

Trade-off: Unpredictable costs and potential latency if the triggering network (keepers, relayers) is congested.

03

Choose Scheduled for Core Infrastructure

Use Case: Building a general-purpose DeFi primitive (Uniswap, Aave, Compound) that requires rock-solid, continuously available price data for core functions.

Why: Reliability and cost predictability are paramount. The system's health depends on uninterrupted data streams, not millisecond reactions to volatility. Leverage battle-tested feeds from Chainlink Data Feeds or Pyth Network.

04

Choose Triggered for Specialized Applications

Use Case: Building a perpetuals DEX, insurance protocol, or real-world asset (RWA) platform where data needs are sporadic or tied to specific off-chain events.

Why: Optimizes for cost and precision. Use Chainlink Functions or API3's dAPIs to fetch data only when a trade settles, a policy triggers, or an asset report is due. Avoids paying for unnecessary updates.

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON

Scheduled vs Triggered Updates: Oracles

Direct comparison of oracle update mechanisms, focusing on performance, cost, and architectural trade-offs.

MetricScheduled Updates (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth)Triggered Updates (e.g., API3, Tellor)

Update Latency

1-60 seconds (per schedule)

< 1 second (on-demand)

Gas Cost per Data Point

$0.10 - $2.00 (shared across users)

$5.00 - $20.00 (user-pays model)

Data Freshness Guarantee

SLA-bound (e.g., every 30s)

Request-bound (user-defined)

Supports Custom APIs

Primary Use Case

High-frequency price feeds (DeFi)

Event-driven data (insurance, gaming)

Decentralization Model

Multi-node consensus

Dispute-based (staked reporters)

pros-cons-a
ORACLE DATA DELIVERY MODELS

Scheduled (Push) vs. Triggered (Pull) Updates: Oracle Architectures

A critical design choice for on-chain data feeds. Scheduled updates push data at intervals, while triggered updates fetch data on-demand. The right model depends on your protocol's latency, cost, and reliability requirements.

01

Scheduled (Push) Updates: Pros

Predictable Freshness & Cost: Data is updated at fixed intervals (e.g., every 5 minutes on Chainlink Data Feeds). This provides deterministic gas expenditure and latency, crucial for perpetual swaps and lending protocols that need stable operations.

High Reliability: The update mechanism is independent of user activity. Even during low network usage, data is refreshed, ensuring high uptime for critical price feeds used in DeFi (e.g., Aave, Compound).

5-60 min
Typical Update Interval
99.9%+
Historical Uptime
02

Scheduled (Push) Updates: Cons

Stale Data Risk: Between updates, data can become outdated. During high volatility events, this lag can lead to stale prices, increasing risk for protocols like options platforms (e.g., Hegic, Dopex).

Inefficient Resource Use: Updates occur regardless of need, wasting gas during periods of low activity. This creates a constant cost overhead, less ideal for niche assets or L2 scaling solutions where gas optimization is paramount.

$10K+/mo
Fixed Gas Cost (Est.)
03

Triggered (Pull) Updates: Pros

Data Freshness on Demand: Oracles like Pyth Network and API3 dAPIs update only when a user transaction requests the latest data. This provides sub-second latency for the requester, essential for high-frequency trading and NFT floor price oracles.

Cost Efficiency: No gas is spent unless data is needed. This pay-per-use model aligns costs with protocol activity, ideal for newer dApps, cross-chain bridges, and gas-sensitive arbitrage bots.

< 1 sec
Update Latency (On Request)
Cost = 0
Idle State Cost
04

Triggered (Pull) Updates: Cons

Unpredictable Latency & Cost: The first user to request fresh data after a deviation pays a high gas premium and experiences update latency. This creates a first-mover disadvantage and unpredictable UX for retail DeFi users.

Liveness Risk: If no one calls the update function, data can remain stale indefinitely. This introduces a liveness dependency, making it risky for isolated lending markets or low-liquidity asset pairs that may see infrequent activity.

300K+ gas
High Update Cost Spike
pros-cons-b
Scheduled vs. Triggered Oracles

Triggered (Pull) Updates: Pros and Cons

Key architectural trade-offs for on-chain data feeds, from cost to freshness.

01

Scheduled (Push) Pros

Predictable Cost & Latency: Updates occur at fixed intervals (e.g., Chainlink's 1-hour heartbeat). This provides deterministic gas budgeting and simplifies protocol design for applications like periodic rebasing tokens (e.g., OlympusDAO forks).

High Reliability for Time-Series: Ideal for historical data aggregation and volume-weighted average price (VWAP) calculations, as seen in GMX's low-frequency funding rate updates.

02

Scheduled (Push) Cons

Stale Data Risk: During high volatility, the fixed update window can lead to significant price deviations. This is a critical vulnerability for perp DEXs or lending protocols, potentially causing undercollateralized positions before the next update.

Inefficient Resource Use: Pays gas for updates regardless of market activity, leading to wasted capital during periods of low volatility or low protocol usage.

03

Triggered (Pull) Pros

Fresh, On-Demand Data: Updates only when a user transaction requires it, ensuring price accuracy at the exact moment of execution. This is essential for spot DEX aggregators like 1inch and on-chain options protocols (e.g., Lyra).

Cost-Effective at Scale: Eliminates gas overhead for idle periods. The cost is borne by the end-user's transaction, aligning incentives and optimizing overall network resource allocation.

04

Triggered (Pull) Cons

Unpredictable User Experience: Final transaction cost includes a variable oracle update fee, creating UX friction. Users on AMMs like Uniswap v3 with TWAP oracles may face surprising gas spikes.

Front-Running Vulnerability: The public nature of the pull request can expose MEV opportunities. Adversaries can exploit the latency between data fetch and contract execution, a concern for protocols like Euler before its hack.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Use Which Oracle Model

Scheduled Updates (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth)

Verdict: The Standard for Core DeFi. Strengths: High reliability and security for critical price feeds (ETH/USD, BTC/USD) used in multi-billion dollar protocols like Aave and Compound. Updates occur at regular intervals (e.g., every block or every few seconds), providing deterministic, battle-tested data for liquidations and interest rates. This model minimizes the risk of manipulation for high-value assets. Trade-off: Latency is bounded by the schedule; you cannot get a fresh price on-demand, which is suboptimal for highly volatile, low-liquidity pairs.

Triggered Updates (e.g., API3 dAPIs, UMA Optimistic Oracle)

Verdict: Ideal for Custom & Event-Driven Logic. Strengths: On-demand data fetching is perfect for insurance protocols (e.g., Nexus Mutual for flight delays), prediction markets (e.g., Polymarket), and exotic derivatives that depend on specific, infrequent events (sports scores, election results). It avoids paying for unnecessary updates, optimizing cost for low-frequency data needs. Trade-off: Higher complexity and potential latency for the initial request. Security depends heavily on the specific oracle's dispute resolution mechanism (e.g., UMA's optimistic challenge period).

SCHEDULED VS TRIGGERED ORACLES

Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security Implications

Choosing between scheduled (pull) and triggered (push) oracle architectures is a foundational decision impacting security, cost, and performance. This section breaks down the key technical trade-offs for protocol architects.

Triggered (push) oracles are generally considered more secure for high-value applications. They eliminate the reliance on a user transaction to initiate an update, preventing stale price attacks where a user exploits a delayed update. Scheduled (pull) oracles, like Chainlink's decentralized data feeds, rely on a decentralized network of nodes to update on-chain at regular intervals, which can be secure but introduces a window of vulnerability if the update cadence is too slow for volatile markets.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Recommendation

Choosing between scheduled and triggered oracle updates is a fundamental architectural decision with significant implications for cost, latency, and reliability.

Scheduled Updates, as implemented by oracles like Chainlink Data Feeds, excel at providing high-frequency, cost-predictable data for mainstream assets. By updating on a fixed cadence (e.g., every block or at a set time interval), they offer exceptional reliability and gas efficiency for high-throughput applications. For example, a perpetual DEX like GMX can rely on these predictable updates to manage millions in TVL with minimal operational overhead and sub-second latency for price freshness.

Triggered Updates, championed by protocols like Pyth Network and API3 dAPIs, take a different approach by updating only when off-chain data moves beyond a predefined deviation threshold (e.g., 0.5%). This on-demand model results in a critical trade-off: it can provide superior gas efficiency and more granular, event-driven data for less volatile or niche assets, but introduces variable latency and potential for stale prices during periods of low volatility or network congestion.

The key trade-off is between predictable freshness and adaptive efficiency. If your priority is ultra-reliable, sub-second data for high-volume trading pairs (e.g., ETH/USD on an AMM), choose a Scheduled Update oracle. If you prioritize minimizing gas costs for a portfolio of exotic assets or reacting to specific on-chain events, and can tolerate slightly variable update times, a Triggered Update model is likely more optimal. For maximum resilience, many top-tier protocols like Aave now use a multi-oracle fallback system, blending both models.

ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected direct pipeline