IPFS + Filecoin vs Arweave: Decentralized Storage Stack

Pay-as-you-go model: Store data via Filecoin's competitive marketplace (~$0.0000000015/GB/month). This matters for large, mutable datasets where you need to add/remove files frequently (e.g., NFT metadata, user-generated content). IPFS provides content-addressed retrieval, while Filecoin adds long-term persistence guarantees via storage deals.

Separate retrieval and storage layers: Use IPFS for fast, decentralized CDN-like access and Filecoin for verifiable, long-term archiving. This matters for composable infrastructure where you might use different providers (e.g., Pinata for IPFS pinning, Estuary for deal-making). It's the standard for EVM ecosystems (Polygon, Ethereum) and tools like NFT.Storage.

One-time, upfront payment: Pay ~$5-10 for 1GB of storage forever. This matters for truly immutable data where you need a legally-binding guarantee of permanence, such as smart contract archives, historical records, or foundational protocol data (e.g., Solana's state snapshots, Mirror's blog posts).

Unified protocol: Storage and retrieval are bundled, simplifying architecture. Data is permanently accessible via its transaction ID. This matters for static web apps (dApps) and permanent databases (via tools like Bundlr and ArDrive) where you want to eliminate ongoing storage management and costs.

Pay-as-you-store model: Filecoin's competitive storage market drives costs down to ~$0.0000000015/GB/month. This matters for large-scale, cold data archives (e.g., historical blockchain snapshots, scientific datasets) where initial write cost is less critical than long-term affordability.

Separated pinning and consensus: Use IPFS for fast, CDN-like content addressing and retrieval, while using Filecoin's blockchain for verifiable, incentivized persistence. This matters for hybrid applications (e.g., NFT platforms using IPFS for metadata + Filecoin for backup) that need both performance and proven storage.

Active lifecycle management required: Data storage deals on Filecoin have fixed terms (e.g., 1 year) and must be manually or programmatically renewed. This matters for operational overhead, as teams must build or use services like Lighthouse or Estuary to automate renewals or risk data loss.

One-time, upfront payment: Pay ~$2-5 per GB once for permanent storage, backed by Arweave's endowment model and crypto-economic guarantees. This matters for truly immutable data (e.g., legal documents, core protocol artifacts, permanent web apps) where indefinite persistence is non-negotiable.

Unified protocol and access: Arweave Bundles data storage and retrieval into a single layer with gateways (like Arweave.net) providing fast HTTP access. This matters for faster time-to-market, as developers interact with a single, coherent API stack instead of managing two separate systems (IPFS nodes + Filecoin deals).

Capital-intensive for large datasets: The upfront cost model can be prohibitive for petabyte-scale archives compared to Filecoin's recurring micro-payments. This matters for bootstrapping projects with massive data (e.g., video platforms, genomic databases) where initial capital outlay is a significant constraint.

Separation of concerns: IPFS handles content addressing and retrieval, while Filecoin provides a verifiable storage marketplace. This allows developers to use IPFS alone for caching or combine them for persistent, incentivized storage. This matters for cost-sensitive, dynamic data where you need to manage storage contracts and retrieval costs independently.

Cons: Storage deals have finite terms (e.g., 1 year), requiring active renewal and management. This introduces operational overhead and risk of data loss if deals lapse. This is a poor fit for permanent archives or 'set-and-forget' data where long-term integrity is the primary requirement.

One-time, upfront fee: Pay once for ~200 years of guaranteed storage, based on conservative assumptions of cost decline. This eliminates renewal risk and operational overhead. This matters for permanent data like NFTs, legal documents, and historical archives where data persistence is non-negotiable.

Cons: The one-time fee is higher than a short-term Filecoin deal, making it less optimal for high-churn, temporary data. Network throughput is also lower (~100 TPS for transactions). This is a poor fit for high-frequency micro-transactions or massive, ephemeral data lakes.