Standard JSON-RPC excels at providing a universal, battle-tested interface for core blockchain interactions like eth_sendRawTransaction. Its ubiquity means near-universal compatibility with existing wallets, indexers, and tools like Etherscan. For example, the Ethereum mainnet processes over 1 million standard transactions daily via this endpoint, demonstrating its foundational stability and massive ecosystem support.
LABS
Comparisons
ERC-4337 RPC (eth_sendUserOperation) vs. Standard JSON-RPC: Infrastructure Decision Guide
A technical comparison for infrastructure architects on choosing between specialized ERC-4337 endpoints supporting the UserOperation mempool and standard JSON-RPC for transaction execution. Focuses on protocol support, operational complexity, and use-case alignment.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The New Mempool Frontier
A technical breakdown of the infrastructure shift from standard JSON-RPC to dedicated 4337 endpoints for managing user operations.
The dedicated eth_sendUserOperation RPC endpoint takes a different approach by being purpose-built for ERC-4337 Account Abstraction. This specialized endpoint connects to a separate, permissionless mempool for UserOperations, managed by bundlers like those from Stackup, Alchemy, or Biconomy. This results in a trade-off: you gain access to AA-specific features like gas sponsorship and batched operations but rely on a newer, less standardized infrastructure layer with its own propagation rules.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum compatibility and dealing with simple EOA transactions for a protocol like Uniswap or Aave, standard JSON-RPC remains the default. If you prioritize building next-generation UX with gasless transactions, session keys, and smart accounts, the dedicated 4337 endpoint is non-negotiable. Choose the specialized endpoint when your application's core value depends on the features unlocked by the ERC-4337 standard itself.
tldr-summary
4337 RPC vs. Standard JSON-RPC
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for Account Abstraction vs. traditional transaction execution.
01
4337 RPC: User Operation Abstraction
Enables smart contract wallets: Executes UserOperation objects, not raw transactions. This matters for sponsoring gas fees, session keys, and batch transactions via bundlers like Stackup or Alchemy's AA SDK.
1 Op
Multiple TXs
03
Standard JSON-RPC: Universal Compatibility
Direct transaction execution: Uses eth_sendTransaction or eth_sendRawTransaction. This matters for existing dApps, DeFi protocols like Uniswap, and wallets like MetaMask that rely on EOA-based signing.
100%
Wallet Support
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
RPC Endpoint for 4337 vs. Standard JSON-RPC
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Account Abstraction vs. standard transaction execution.
| Metric / Feature | Standard JSON-RPC (eth_sendTransaction) | ERC-4337 RPC (eth_sendUserOperation) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Function | Execute standard EOA transactions | Execute UserOperations for Smart Accounts |
Account Model | Externally Owned Account (EOA) | Smart Contract Account (SCA) |
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) | ||
Batch Transactions | ||
Session Keys / Social Recovery | ||
Avg. Gas Overhead | 21,000 gas (base) | 42,000+ gas (bundler + validation) |
Key Standards | ECDSA (secp256k1) | Any (ECDSA, MPC, Passkeys) |
pros-cons-a
RPC Endpoint for 4337 vs. Standard JSON-RPC
ERC-4337 RPC (eth_sendUserOperation): Pros and Cons
A technical comparison of the specialized eth_sendUserOperation endpoint versus standard transaction RPCs (eth_sendTransaction, eth_sendRawTransaction).
01
ERC-4337 RPC: Native Abstraction
Direct smart account integration: The endpoint is purpose-built for UserOperations, handling Paymaster sponsorship, signature aggregation, and bundler logic natively. This matters for developers building dApps that require gasless transactions or session keys, as it abstracts the complexity of the 4337 stack.
02
ERC-4337 RPC: Enhanced Security & Intent
Decoupled signature and execution: Unlike eth_sendTransaction, a UserOperation is a signed intent, not a direct transaction. This enables secure off-chain simulation by bundlers before on-chain inclusion, reducing the risk of front-running and failed transactions for end-users.
03
Standard RPC: Universal Compatibility
Immediate network support: eth_sendTransaction works on every EVM chain (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) without requiring 4337 infrastructure. This matters for protocols prioritizing broad, immediate reach over account abstraction features, or for interacting with simple EOAs.
04
Standard RPC: Simpler Infrastructure
No dependency on new actors: Standard transactions require only a node RPC. eth_sendUserOperation depends on a healthy network of bundlers, paymasters, and entry points, adding operational complexity and potential points of failure for your application.
05
ERC-433 RPC: Higher Latency & Cost
Multi-actor workflow: A UserOperation must be relayed, simulated by a bundler, and included in a bundle, adding latency vs. a direct transaction. Paymaster fees and bundler margins also introduce variable costs that can exceed standard gas fees for simple transfers.
06
Standard RPC: Limited User Experience
No built-in AA features: Standard endpoints cannot initiate gasless transactions, batch operations, or complex recovery flows natively. Achieving these requires layering external meta-transaction services (like OpenZeppelin Defender or Gelato), creating vendor lock-in and fragmented logic.
pros-cons-b
RPC ENDPOINT COMPARISON
Standard JSON-RPC (eth_sendTransaction) vs. ERC-4337 (eth_sendUserOperation)
Key architectural differences, strengths, and trade-offs for infrastructure decisions.
01
Standard RPC: Universal Compatibility
Direct chain access: Works with every existing EVM wallet (MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet) and tool (Hardhat, Foundry). This matters for legacy dApp integration and rapid prototyping where user experience is secondary to broad accessibility.
02
Standard RPC: Predictable Gas & Simplicity
Deterministic gas model: Users pay gas fees directly with native tokens. This simplifies accounting and cost forecasting for enterprise applications. The mental model is straightforward for end-users, with no need to understand paymasters or bundlers.
03
ERC-4337: Sponsored & Flexible Gas
Paymaster abstraction: Enables gas sponsorship, payment in ERC-20 tokens, and session keys. This matters for onboarding (first tx free) and enterprise SaaS models where you want to hide blockchain complexity from users.
04
ERC-4337: Batched Operations & Security
Bundler infrastructure: Multiple UserOperations are bundled into a single on-chain transaction, reducing overall gas costs for high-volume applications. Supports atomic multi-op flows (e.g., swap then bridge) and social recovery via smart account logic, crucial for institutional custody.
05
Standard RPC: Mature Tooling & Monitoring
Established ecosystem: Full support in Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode, and Tenderly for debugging. This matters for mission-critical applications requiring deep transaction tracing, historical data access, and proven reliability.
06
ERC-4337: Future-Proof Account Abstraction
Smart Account native: Enables features like transaction batching, spending limits, and permissioned roles natively at the account layer. This is essential for next-gen DeFi protocols and regulated DeFi (DeFi 2.0) requiring complex authorization logic.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Standard JSON-RPC for Speed
Verdict: Not ideal for user-facing apps. Standard endpoints require developers to manage gas, nonces, and wallet signatures directly. This adds latency and complexity, harming the user experience. For simple reads or internal tools, it's fast, but for user-initiated actions, it's a bottleneck.
4337 RPC Endpoint for Speed
Verdict: Superior for seamless UX. The eth_sendUserOperation endpoint abstracts gas sponsorship, bundling, and nonce management to a Paymaster and Bundler. This enables gasless transactions, batch operations, and instant feedback to the user. For dApps like Uniswap or Aave using account abstraction, this is the only way to achieve near-instant perceived transaction times. Use with providers like Alchemy's AA SDK or Biconomy for best results.
RPC ENDPOINT COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Mempool and Bundler Mechanics
ERC-4337 introduces a new transaction paradigm with its own RPC method. This section breaks down the key differences between the standard JSON-RPC flow and the new `eth_sendUserOperation` endpoint, focusing on performance, cost, and architectural implications for developers.
No, eth_sendUserOperation is typically slower for finality, but it enables a superior user experience. The standard eth_sendTransaction submits a signed transaction directly to the public mempool for immediate inclusion. eth_sendUserOperation submits an unsigned UserOperation to a dedicated mempool, which must then be bundled and submitted by a Bundler, adding latency. However, this allows for gas sponsorship, batched transactions, and future execution, which are impossible with the standard flow.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown for CTOs choosing between specialized 4337 endpoints and standard JSON-RPC for their account abstraction stack.
Specialized 4337 Endpoints (e.g., Alchemy's bundler namespace, Infura's eth_sendUserOperation) excel at reliability and performance for AA-specific workloads. They are purpose-built for the UserOperation lifecycle, handling bundling, paymaster sponsorship, and mempool management with high efficiency. For example, dedicated endpoints from leading providers consistently achieve sub-300ms latency for eth_sendUserOperation and maintain >99.9% uptime, which is critical for consumer dApps requiring seamless user onboarding.
Standard JSON-RPC Endpoints take a different, foundational approach by providing the universal base layer for all Ethereum interactions. This results in a trade-off: while they offer maximum compatibility for reading chain state (eth_getBalance) and sending traditional transactions (eth_sendTransaction), they lack native support for AA operations. You must run and maintain your own bundler infrastructure, introducing significant operational overhead and points of failure, but you retain full control over the bundling logic and fee market strategies.
The key architectural trade-off is between integrated convenience and foundational control. If your priority is rapid development, operational simplicity, and guaranteed performance for AA features, choose a specialized 4337 endpoint from a provider like Alchemy, Infura, or QuickNode. If you prioritize maximum control over the bundling process, deep protocol-level customization, or are building novel bundler logic, you must build on the standard JSON-RPC and manage your own bundler (e.g., using Stackup's bundler, Pimlico's permissionless.js). For most production dApps targeting mainstream adoption, the integrated 4337 endpoint is the strategic choice to ensure scalability and user experience.
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