Arweave vs IPFS: Decentralized Website Hosting

One-time fee for perpetual data persistence: Pay ~$5-10 upfront to store 1GB forever via the endowment model. This is critical for archival dApps, legal documents, and permanent web assets where data integrity over decades is non-negotiable.

Higher upfront cost and slower retrieval: The permanent storage premium makes it expensive for high-churn, temporary data. Latency is higher (~2-5s) than optimized CDNs, making it less ideal for highly interactive, real-time frontends without a caching layer.

Content-addressed, peer-to-peer global CDN: Files are fetched from the nearest node, enabling fast, resilient static site hosting. This excels for NFT metadata, frontend assets for DeFi apps, and community-driven content where speed and availability are paramount.

No built-in persistence guarantee: Data is only stored while pinning services (like Pinata, Infura) are paid or nodes choose to host it. This creates ongoing operational costs and pinning risk, unsuitable for truly permanent, "set-and-forget" archives.

One-time, perpetual payment: Pay ~$5-10 upfront for 1GB stored for 200+ years via endowment model. This matters for archival dApps, legal documents, and NFT metadata where deletion is unacceptable.

Pinning-as-a-service ecosystem: Use providers like Pinata, Filebase, or web3.storage for managed persistence, paying monthly. This matters for dynamic content, staging environments, or projects with evolving data where permanent storage is overkill.

Complex upfront estimation: Cost depends on network demand and AR token price. Tooling like Arweave Fees.js is required. This is a con for teams needing simple, recurring billing or hosting frequently changing sites.

'Garbage collection' risk: Data not pinned by you or a service can be deleted by nodes. This is a con for mission-critical, long-term data where losing pins means losing access, requiring active infrastructure management.

Permanent data persistence: Single, upfront fee covers storage for a minimum of 200 years via the endowment model. This is critical for archival sites, legal documents, and permanent web apps where link rot is unacceptable. Projects like Mirror.xyz and everPay leverage this for immutable publishing.

Native blockchain with token incentives: Miners are paid in AR tokens to store data permanently, creating a sustainable, decentralized network. This provides strong liveness guarantees without relying on altruistic pinning services. The ecosystem includes tools like Bundlr for fast uploads and ArDrive for file management.

Higher initial cost structure: Paying for permanence upfront is more expensive than variable pinning services. Requires AR tokens for transactions, adding wallet management complexity. Best suited for projects with long-term roadmaps and dedicated devops, not ephemeral content.

Widely adopted content-addressed protocol: Serves as the de facto standard for decentralized storage, integrated with Filecoin, Polygon, and Ethereum (via IPLD). Offers maximum flexibility: host yourself, use a pinning service (Pinata, Filebase), or rely on public gateways. Ideal for NFT metadata, CDN-like distribution, and developer experimentation.

Minimal initial cost: Can start for free using public nodes or low-cost pinning services (~$20/TB/month). No cryptocurrency required for basic use via services. This makes it perfect for MVPs, temporary campaigns, and projects prioritizing rapid iteration over guaranteed permanence.

Data persistence is not native: Content disappears if no node pins it, leading to link rot risk. Achieving permanence requires ongoing payments to a pinning service or running your own infrastructure, which shifts from a decentralized to a client-server model. This is a critical weakness for mission-critical archives.