The Graph excels at high-performance querying of immutable, on-chain data through its decentralized indexing protocol. By creating and hosting open APIs called subgraphs, it allows applications to efficiently query historical and real-time blockchain data without running a full node. For example, its network processes over 1 billion queries daily for protocols like Uniswap and Aave, demonstrating its scalability for read-heavy dApps that rely on complex, aggregated data from events and transactions.
LABS
Comparisons
The Graph vs Ceramic: Indexing vs. Composable Data
A technical analysis comparing The Graph's immutable event indexing with Ceramic's mutable data streams, focusing on architecture, trade-offs, and optimal use cases for credential issuance and decentralized applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Architectures for Decentralized Data
A technical breakdown of The Graph's query-first indexing model versus Ceramic's mutable, composable data streams.
Ceramic takes a different approach by providing a decentralized data network for mutable, user-controlled information streams. Its core primitive is the stream, a mutable data structure anchored to a blockchain, enabling use cases like dynamic user profiles, social graphs, and portable reputation. This results in a trade-off: while not optimized for high-throughput historical queries like The Graph, Ceramic uniquely solves for data that must evolve over time and be composable across applications, as seen in projects like Orbis (social) and Self.ID.
The key trade-off: If your priority is querying vast amounts of immutable, event-based blockchain data at scale (e.g., for analytics dashboards, DeFi frontends), choose The Graph. If you prioritize building with mutable, user-centric data that needs to be updated and shared across applications (e.g., decentralized identity, user-generated content), choose Ceramic.
tldr-summary
The Graph vs Ceramic
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The Graph is a decentralized query engine for historical blockchain data, while Ceramic is a composable data network for mutable, user-centric information.
03
Choose The Graph If...
Your primary need is querying and aggregating historical, on-chain events. This is the standard for:
- DeFi Analytics: Tracking TVL, volume, and user positions over time.
- NFT Platforms: Querying ownership history, traits, and collection stats.
- Block Explorers & Dashboards: Needing reliable, indexed access to past transactions and log data.
Trade-off: It's not designed for storing or updating mutable application state.
04
Choose Ceramic If...
Your application requires user-owned, updatable data that works across dApps. This is critical for:
- Web3 Social Networks: User profiles, posts, and social graphs (e.g., built with ComposeDB).
- Dynamic NFT Metadata: Updating traits, descriptions, or unlocking content post-mint.
- Portable Reputation & Credentials: Storing verifiable credentials or achievements that need to be updated.
Trade-off: Not optimized for high-frequency, complex queries over vast historical datasets.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
The Graph vs Ceramic: Indexing vs. Composable Data
Direct comparison of core architecture, data models, and operational metrics.
| Metric / Feature | The Graph | Ceramic | |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Data Model | Indexed Query Results (GraphQL) | Mutable Data Streams (JSON) | Decentralized Storage (IPFS/Filecoin) |
Core Function | Blockchain Data Indexing & Querying | Dynamic, Composable Data | Persistent, Static Data |
Query Language | GraphQL | GraphQL (via ComposeDB) | N/A (Content Addressing) |
Data Mutability | |||
Decentralized Network | The Graph Network (Indexers/Curators) | Ceramic Mainnet (Node Operators) | IPFS (Pinning Services) |
Typical Use Case | DApp Frontends, Analytics Dashboards | User Profiles, Social Feeds, Dynamic NFTs | Static Assets, NFT Metadata, Archives |
Pricing Model | Query Fee (GRT), Indexer Curation | Stream Creation/Update Fees | Storage & Retrieval Fees |
Key Integration | Subgraphs | ComposeDB, DataModels | CIDs, IPFS Gateways |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
The Graph vs Ceramic: Indexing vs. Composable Data
A data-driven comparison for CTOs choosing between a battle-tested indexing protocol and a next-gen composable data network.
05
The Graph Limitation: Static Data Model
Challenging for real-time, mutable state: Subgraphs index immutable on-chain events into a defined schema. This matters less for historical analysis but is a poor fit for applications requiring frequent, off-chain updates or complex inter-document relationships that Ceramic's mutable streams handle natively.
06
Ceramic Limitation: Not for Raw Chain Indexing
Requires a separate data source for on-chain events: It is a data composition layer, not a primary indexer. This matters because teams building a typical DeFi or NFT dApp will still need The Graph or another indexer to first query blockchain events before storing derived, composable state on Ceramic.
pros-cons-b
The Graph vs Ceramic
Ceramic: Strengths and Limitations
A data infrastructure comparison for CTOs: indexing historical blockchain state vs. building mutable, composable data streams.
01
The Graph: Unmatched Query Performance
Optimized for complex historical queries: Subgraphs index specific on-chain data, enabling fast, GraphQL-based queries for DeFi dashboards or NFT analytics. This matters for applications like Uniswap Info that need to aggregate and filter massive historical transaction data with sub-second latency.
1,000+
Deployed Subgraphs
< 1 sec
Typical Query Latency
03
Ceramic: Mutable, Composable Data Streams
Enables user-owned, updatable data: Data is stored in Streams (like git commits) on IPFS, referenced by a decentralized identifier (DID). This matters for building dynamic user profiles, social graphs, or mutable metadata where data evolves over time, unlike static on-chain storage.
DID-based
Data Model
IPFS + Libp2p
Underlying Stack
05
The Graph Limitation: Static Historical Focus
Designed for querying past events, not real-time mutable state: Subgraphs index immutable blockchain logs. This is a poor fit for applications requiring frequent off-chain data updates, collaborative editing, or user-generated content that changes faster than block times.
06
Ceramic Limitation: Not for Heavy Aggregation
Optimized for granular data streams, not bulk analytics: Querying across millions of streams for aggregate metrics (e.g., total TVL) is not its primary strength. This matters less for financial reporting dashboards and more for per-user data interactions. Complex analytics require separate indexing layers.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
The Graph for DeFi & Analytics
Verdict: The default choice for on-chain data queries. Strengths: Unmatched for querying historical and real-time blockchain state. Subgraphs index events from major DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound, providing structured data for dashboards, analytics platforms, and trading strategies via GraphQL. The decentralized network ensures high availability and censorship resistance for public data. Limitations: Primarily reads finalized on-chain data; not designed for mutable, user-centric data.
Ceramic for DeFi & Analytics
Verdict: Niche use for portable user profiles and composable reputation. Strengths: Enables decentralized identity (DID) and portable credit scores that can be used across DeFi applications. A user's transaction history or reputation (e.g., as a liquidity provider) can be stored as a Ceramic stream and queried by protocols for underwriting or personalized rates. Integrates with IDX for unified data models. Limitations: Overkill for simple token price or TVL queries; adds complexity for standard analytics.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown of when to choose The Graph's queryable indexing versus Ceramic's composable data streams.
The Graph excels at providing high-performance, decentralized indexing for historical on-chain data because it leverages a global network of Indexers and Delegators to serve queries for subgraphs. For example, its network processes over 1 billion queries per day for protocols like Uniswap and Aave, offering proven reliability for DeFi analytics and dApp frontends that need to query complex, finalized event logs and contract states.
Ceramic takes a different approach by providing a decentralized, mutable data network for off-chain, user-centric data. This results in a trade-off: you gain powerful composability for dynamic data like user profiles, social graphs, and mutable metadata (via standards like CIPs and TileDocument streams), but you sacrifice the deep, historical querying of on-chain state that The Graph specializes in. Its strength is enabling data portability across applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is querying immutable, historical blockchain data (e.g., transaction history, liquidity pool metrics, NFT provenance), choose The Graph. If you prioritize managing mutable, user-owned off-chain data that needs to be shared and updated across applications (e.g., decentralized social feeds, user settings, dynamic metadata), choose Ceramic. For a full-stack decentralized app, a strategic combination of both—using The Graph for on-chain logic and Ceramic for user data—is often the most powerful architecture.
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