The Graph excels at high-performance indexing and querying of existing blockchain data because it uses a decentralized network of indexers to process and serve subgraphs. For example, its network handles over 1 billion queries daily for protocols like Uniswap and Aave, providing sub-second latency for complex historical data lookups. This makes it the go-to for analyzing on-chain reputation signals like transaction history, governance participation, or token holdings that are already recorded on a base layer like Ethereum or Polygon.
LABS
Comparisons
The Graph vs Ceramic (for querying reputation data)
A technical analysis comparing The Graph's decentralized indexing for querying immutable on-chain data against Ceramic's mutable data streams for managing dynamic reputation states. Essential for architects building reputation scoring, SBT, or VC systems.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Architectures for Decentralized Reputation
Choosing between The Graph and Ceramic hinges on whether you need to query existing on-chain data or build a new, composable data layer.
Ceramic takes a different approach by providing a decentralized, mutable data network for user-centric information. This results in a trade-off: while not an indexer of existing chains, it enables the creation of portable, updatable data streams (like user profiles or verifiable credentials) using the IDX standard and CIPs (Ceramic Improvement Proposals). This architecture is fundamental for building dynamic, off-chain reputation systems where data needs to be updated by users or verifiers, not just queried.
The key trade-off: If your priority is querying and aggregating immutable, on-chain reputation data at scale, choose The Graph. If you prioritize creating and managing mutable, user-owned reputation data that can be composed across applications, choose Ceramic.
tldr-summary
The Graph vs Ceramic
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for querying and managing reputation data at a glance.
03
The Graph: Data Provenance & Immutability
Strengths: Data integrity is anchored to the blockchain. Subgraphs index specific smart contracts, providing a cryptographically verifiable audit trail. Query performance is high for historical data, with ~1-2 second latency for complex queries via hosted service or decentralized network. Trade-off: Not designed for frequent writes or updating existing records. Best for append-only reputation logs.
04
Ceramic: Data Mutability & Control
Strengths: Enables user-controlled, updatable data. Reputation scores or attestations can be revised without creating new blockchain transactions. Uses IPFS for storage and blockchain for anchoring, balancing flexibility with security. Trade-off: The data model is more complex (Datastreams, DID-based ownership). Latency for reads/writes depends on the Ceramic node network, typically < 3 seconds.
05
Choose The Graph If...
Your reputation system is primarily based on immutable on-chain actions. Ideal for:
- DeFi credit scoring based on loan repayments (Aave)
- DAO contributor reputation from proposal votes and execution (Compound Governance)
- NFT-based membership tiers with static ownership proofs You need a firehose of queryable event data and are comfortable with a subgraph development workflow.
06
Choose Ceramic If...
Your reputation system requires user-owned, updatable data that crosses applications. Ideal for:
- Web3 social reputation with follower counts and peer endorsements (Orbis, CyberConnect)
- Professional credential networks where skills are verified and updated over time
- Gamified achievement systems with progressive badges You need composable data models using standards like CIP-8 (JSON-based streams) and DID-based access control.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
The Graph vs Ceramic Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of decentralized data infrastructure for querying and managing dynamic data.
| Metric / Feature | The Graph | Ceramic |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Type | Historical & real-time blockchain state | Mutable, user-centric data streams |
Query Model | GraphQL API to indexed subgraphs | Document-based streams with GraphQL or REST |
Data Mutability | ||
Native Composability Standard | Subgraph Schema | CIPs (Ceramic Improvement Proposals) |
Decentralized Network | The Graph Network (Indexers, Curators) | Ceramic Mainnet (Node Operators) |
Typical Query Latency | < 1 sec (cached) | ~100-500ms |
Primary Use Case | DApp frontends, analytics dashboards | User profiles, social graphs, reputation systems |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
The Graph vs Ceramic: Querying Reputation Data
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for on-chain reputation systems at a glance.
01
The Graph: Strength - Battle-Tested Indexing
Decentralized data availability: Indexes data from 40+ blockchains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum). For reputation, this means a single GraphQL endpoint can query aggregated user activity across multiple chains. This matters for protocols like Aave or Compound needing cross-chain credit history.
40+
Supported Chains
700+
Live Subgraphs
02
The Graph: Weakness - Static & Historical Focus
Optimized for immutable logs: Subgraphs index past events efficiently but aren't designed for mutable, user-centric state. Reputation often requires real-time updates and personal data control. Building a dynamic profile (e.g., a user's evolving Sybil score) requires complex off-chain logic, making it a less native fit than purpose-built data layers.
04
Ceramic: Weakness - Query Complexity & Maturity
No native GraphQL layer: Querying across multiple data streams requires custom indexing logic or reliance on ComposeDB. The ecosystem tooling (e.g., The Graph's hosted service) for complex, high-performance queries is less mature. This matters for applications needing low-latency analytics over vast datasets, where The Graph's decentralized network is more proven.
pros-cons-b
THE GRAPH VS CERAMIC
Ceramic: Pros and Cons for Reputation Data
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for decentralized data querying and storage.
01
The Graph: Optimized for Complex Queries
Purpose-built for indexing: Subgraphs can aggregate and index reputation data across thousands of wallets and smart contracts (e.g., Lens Protocol, POAP). This matters for applications needing real-time, historical analytics like leaderboards or on-chain credit scores.
1,000+
Active Subgraphs
< 1 sec
Query Latency
03
Ceramic: Dynamic, Writable Data Streams
Mutable, user-owned data: Reputation scores, reviews, and attestations (e.g., using Verifiable Credentials) can be updated over time in ComposeDB. This matters for evolving user profiles and portable social graphs, unlike static on-chain state.
Streams
Data Model
05
The Graph: Limited to Indexed On-Chain Data
Cannot natively handle mutable off-chain data: Subgraphs index immutable blockchain events. For dynamic reputation (e.g., a user's changing score), you need a separate mutable storage layer, adding complexity.
06
Ceramic: Query Complexity & Performance Trade-off
Not optimized for heavy aggregation: While ComposeDB uses GraphQL, complex queries across massive datasets (e.g., ranking all users) are less performant than a purpose-built indexer. This matters for high-throughput analytics dashboards.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
The Graph for DeFi Reputation
Verdict: The default choice for on-chain reputation indexing. Strengths: Optimized for querying immutable, high-volume on-chain data like transaction histories, governance votes, and token holdings. Subgraphs for protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound provide battle-tested schemas for creditworthiness and user activity. Its decentralized network ensures data integrity and availability for critical financial logic. Limitations: Not designed for mutable, off-chain, or user-curated data.
Ceramic for DeFi Reputation
Verdict: Niche use for composable, user-owned reputation graphs. Strengths: Enables portable, self-sovereign reputation data (e.g., DeFi Saver user profiles, KYC attestations via Verite) that can be updated and carried across apps. Ideal for building undercollateralized lending based on a mutable, cross-protocol reputation score stored in Ceramic DataModels. Limitations: Higher latency for real-time on-chain event queries; reputation logic depends on off-chain data availability.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between The Graph and Ceramic hinges on whether you need to query existing, verifiable data or build a new, mutable data layer.
The Graph excels at high-performance, decentralized querying of immutable, on-chain data because it indexes historical blockchain state into a globally accessible GraphQL API. For example, protocols like Uniswap and Aave use its subgraphs to serve billions of queries per month, leveraging its proven uptime and massive network of over 600+ Indexers. Its strength lies in providing a unified, verifiable view of events and state changes from blockchains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon.
Ceramic takes a different approach by providing a decentralized data network for mutable, off-chain data streams. This results in a powerful trade-off: you gain the ability to create and update user-centric data like profiles, reputation scores, and social graphs with DID-based ownership, but you sacrifice the direct, verifiable link to on-chain consensus. Its composable data models, like CIP-19 for verifiable credentials, are ideal for building dynamic, user-owned applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is querying and analyzing historical, on-chain reputation events (e.g., governance voting history, transaction volume, staking records) with maximum reliability and decentralization, choose The Graph. If you prioritize creating and managing a mutable, user-controlled reputation data layer that can evolve off-chain and be referenced by smart contracts, choose Ceramic. For a complete reputation system, many projects use both: Ceramic for the dynamic profile and The Graph to query the on-chain actions that inform it.
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