Gelato Network excels at generalized, chain-agnostic smart contract automation because its architecture is built around a decentralized network of executors (Gelato Relayers) and a robust off-chain condition monitoring system. For example, Gelato supports over 20 EVM and non-EVM chains (like Arbitrum, Polygon, and zkSync) and has processed over 20 million automated transactions, demonstrating its scale and reliability for tasks like limit orders, yield harvesting, and cross-chain messaging via its Web3 Functions.
LABS
Comparisons
Gelato Network vs Biconomy: Automation & Relaying for AVS
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing Gelato Network and Biconomy as critical infrastructure providers for Actively Validated Services (AVS), focusing on automation, gas abstraction, and transaction reliability.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Infrastructure Layer for Seamless AVS UX
Choosing between Gelato and Biconomy hinges on your AVS's core need: generalized, chain-agnostic automation or user-centric gas abstraction.
Biconomy takes a different approach by specializing in gas abstraction and user experience (UX) tooling. Its core strategy is to remove blockchain complexity for end-users through features like gasless meta-transactions, sponsored transactions via its Paymaster standard, and simplified onboarding with social logins. This results in a trade-off: while its automation scope is more focused on transaction relaying, it delivers a superior, frictionless UX for applications where user adoption and onboarding speed are critical.
The key trade-off: If your priority is broad, multi-chain automation for backend processes (e.g., automated treasury management, recurring payments, or cross-chain AVS operations), choose Gelato. If you prioritize maximizing end-user adoption by abstracting gas fees and wallet complexity for your AVS's frontend interactions, choose Biconomy.
tldr-summary
Gelato Network vs Biconomy
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading automation and relaying services for Actively Validated Services (AVS).
01
Gelato: Unmatched Automation Breadth
Full-stack automation: Offers a wider range of services including Gelato Web3 Functions (serverless compute), Automate (smart contract automation), and Relay (gasless transactions). This matters for protocols needing complex, scheduled tasks like limit orders, yield harvesting, or dynamic NFT mints.
10+
Supported Chains
03
Biconomy: Superior User Onboarding & Gas Abstraction
Best-in-class UX: Specializes in gasless meta-transactions and Paymaster services, allowing dApps to sponsor user fees or enable payment in any ERC-20 token. This matters for consumer-facing applications where removing friction (like needing native ETH) is critical for adoption.
100M+
Gasless Transactions
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Gelato Network vs Biconomy
Direct comparison of automation and relaying services for Autonomous Verification Services (AVS) and dApps.
| Metric / Feature | Gelato Network | Biconomy |
|---|---|---|
Core Service Model | Decentralized Automation Network | Gas Abstraction & Relayer Service |
Supported Chains (Count) | 20+ | 15+ |
Avg. Gas Relayer Fee | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.02 - $0.15 |
Automation Features | Smart Contract Automation (Cron Jobs, Limit Orders) | Gasless Transactions, Meta Transactions |
Native Account Abstraction Support | ||
Developer SDKs | Gelato Relay SDK, Web3 Functions | Biconomy SDK, Particle Network |
Primary Use Case | Scheduled & Conditional Smart Contract Execution | User Onboarding & Gas Fee Sponsorship |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Gelato vs Biconomy
Gelato Network for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for complex, time-based automation and MEV protection. Strengths:
- Automation: Unmatched for scheduled tasks like limit orders, yield harvesting (e.g., Yearn, MakerDAO), and liquidity rebalancing via
automate.createTask. - MEV Protection:
gelatoOraclesand secure off-chain computation enable fair, front-run resistant liquidations and limit orders. - Reliability: Decentralized executor network ensures high uptime for critical financial operations. Consider: Slightly higher complexity for simple relay tasks.
Biconomy for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for abstracting gas and onboarding users with meta-transactions. Strengths:
- Gas Abstraction:
Biconomy SDKenables gasless transactions, letting users pay fees in ERC-20 tokens, crucial for DeFi UX. - Speed: Hypersdk offers fast, deterministic finality for relayed transactions.
- Simplicity: Easier initial integration for basic relay needs like permit2 approvals. Consider: Less optimized for complex, cron-like automation workflows compared to Gelato.
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Gelato Network vs Biconomy: Automation & Relaying for AVS
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading automation and gas abstraction providers in the modular stack.
01
Gelato Network: Pros
Specialized Automation Engine: Offers a robust, decentralized network of relayers for smart contract automation (tasks, limit orders, liquidations). This is critical for AVSs requiring scheduled or conditional logic execution (e.g., EigenLayer slashing conditions, oracle updates).
- Key Metric: Processes 3M+ automated tasks monthly across 12+ chains.
- Use Case Fit: Best for protocols where automation is the core requirement, not just transaction relaying.
02
Gelato Network: Cons
Gas Abstraction as Secondary: While Gelato offers 1Balance for gas sponsorship, its primary design is for automation. User onboarding flows (e.g., ERC-4337 Account Abstraction) are less native compared to dedicated AA stacks.
- Trade-off: You may need to integrate additional tooling (like Pimlico or Stackup) for full AA wallet features.
- Consider if: Your AVS's primary need is seamless user onboarding over complex backend automation.
03
Biconomy: Pros
User-Centric Gas Abstraction: Built from the ground up for Account Abstraction (AA) and gasless transactions. Provides a full-stack SDK for sponsored transactions, batch calls, and paymasters.
- Key Metric: Enables 2M+ gasless transactions monthly, with deep ERC-4337 integration.
- Use Case Fit: Ideal for AVSs and dApps where developer experience and user onboarding are paramount (e.g., consumer-facing apps on EigenLayer).
04
Biconomy: Cons
Automation as Add-on: While Biconomy offers Automate for scheduled tasks, it's a newer service compared to Gelato's battle-tested automation core. The relayer network is more optimized for user ops than complex, high-frequency backend jobs.
- Trade-off: Might not be the optimal choice for an AVS requiring high-frequency, low-latency automation (e.g., perpetual DEX keepers).
- Consider if: Your core automation logic is simple or infrequent.
pros-cons-b
Automation & Relaying for AVS
Gelato Network vs Biconomy: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading infrastructure providers, helping you decide which is the right fit for your protocol's automation and gas abstraction needs.
02
Gelato Network: Battle-Tested Reliability
Proven track record with major DeFi: Secures over $10B+ in TVL for clients like MakerDAO, Instadapp, and Quickswap. Its decentralized network of executors provides high uptime (99.9%+) and censorship resistance, which is critical for mission-critical smart contract operations.
$10B+
Secured TVL
99.9%+
Uptime
04
Biconomy: Multi-Chain Relayer Network
Optimized for cross-chain UX: Operates a high-performance, managed relayer network across 15+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, etc.). This ensures fast and reliable transaction forwarding, which is essential for applications with users spread across multiple ecosystems.
15+
Supported Chains
< 2 sec
Avg. Relay Time
05
Gelato Network: Higher Complexity & Cost
Trade-off for power: Advanced automation features (e.g., custom logic resolvers) require more development overhead. Execution fees can be higher for complex tasks compared to simple relaying. Less ideal for projects that only need basic transaction forwarding.
06
Biconomy: Less Focus on Complex Automation
Trade-off for UX focus: Primarily a relayer and gas abstraction layer. While it offers some automation via webhooks, it lacks the deep, on-chain conditional logic and scheduler capabilities of Gelato. Not the best choice for protocols whose core logic depends on automated smart contract execution.
GELATO NETWORK VS BICONOMY
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security Models
A technical comparison of two leading automation and relaying services for Actively Validated Services (AVS) and smart contract developers, focusing on core architectural decisions, security guarantees, and operational trade-offs.
Gelato Network is architecturally more decentralized. Gelato operates a permissionless network of node operators who execute tasks, secured by staked GEL tokens and slashing conditions. Biconomy's Hyphen relayer network, while robust, historically relied more on a permissioned set of operators, though it is evolving towards a permissionless model with its Biconomy DAO. For AVS developers, Gelato's model offers stronger censorship resistance and liveness guarantees derived from its decentralized executor layer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure choice between two leading automation and relaying services for Actively Validated Services (AVS).
Gelato Network excels at generalized, multi-chain smart contract automation because of its robust, decentralized network of executors and its extensive suite of pre-built automation functions. For example, its Gelato Web3 Functions allow developers to run serverless, decentralized cron jobs with custom off-chain logic, a critical feature for complex DeFi protocols managing limit orders, liquidity rebalancing, or yield harvesting across chains like Arbitrum and Polygon. Its proven track record is backed by securing over $10 billion in value for protocols like MakerDAO and Liquity.
Biconomy takes a different approach by specializing in user experience (UX) abstraction and gas sponsorship, with automation as a core enabler. This results in a trade-off: while its automation capabilities for tasks like meta-transactions and gasless interactions are highly optimized, its scope is more focused on onboarding and simplifying user interactions rather than broad, arbitrary off-chain computation. Its Hyphen bridge and Paymaster services demonstrate this user-centric design, processing millions of gasless transactions for dApps like Decentraland and Perpetual Protocol.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing developer flexibility for complex, cross-chain backend automation (e.g., automated treasury management, conditional order execution), choose Gelato. Its decentralized network and Web3 Functions provide a more programmable and resilient foundation for intricate logic. If you prioritize abstracting blockchain complexity from end-users to drive adoption (e.g., enabling gasless transactions, seamless cross-chain swaps, or subscription payments), choose Biconomy. Its integrated stack is purpose-built to remove friction and cost barriers for your users.
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