Infura excels at providing a seamless, high-availability gateway to the Ethereum ecosystem, backed by its deep integration with ConsenSys and a massive, established user base. For example, it powers a significant portion of the DeFi and NFT sectors, handling billions of daily requests with a proven 99.9%+ uptime SLA. Its unified API and robust tooling for Ethereum, Polygon, and other major chains make it a default choice for rapid development and scaling.
LABS
Comparisons
Infura vs Chainstack: Enterprise Node Hosting
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating enterprise-grade node hosting providers, focusing on multi-cloud support, compliance, and dedicated infrastructure.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A data-driven comparison of Infura and Chainstack, the leading enterprise node providers, to guide infrastructure decisions.
Chainstack takes a different approach by offering a multi-cloud, geographically distributed architecture with a strong focus on sovereignty and performance. This results in lower latency for global applications and greater deployment flexibility across AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure, but can require more initial configuration. Its pay-as-you-go pricing and support for dedicated, full archive nodes appeal to protocols like Aave and The Graph that demand deep data access and predictable costs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, ecosystem integration, and a battle-tested service for mainstream EVM chains, choose Infura. If you prioritize infrastructure control, multi-cloud resilience, and granular cost management for a diverse multi-chain strategy, choose Chainstack.
tldr-summary
Infura vs Chainstack
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A direct comparison of strengths and trade-offs for enterprise-grade node hosting.
01
Infura's Core Strength
Market maturity and ecosystem integration: The original and most widely adopted RPC provider, with deep integrations into major developer tools like Truffle, Hardhat, and MetaMask. This matters for teams prioritizing developer familiarity and reducing integration friction for standard EVM operations.
02
Infura's Trade-off
Centralization and single-point-of-failure risk: Operates a centralized, multi-tenant infrastructure. Historical outages (e.g., Nov 2020) have caused widespread dApp downtime. This matters for mission-critical applications requiring maximum uptime guarantees beyond a single provider's SLA.
03
Chainstack's Core Strength
Hybrid and dedicated node flexibility: Offers a clear path from shared nodes to dedicated, single-tenant nodes and even bring-your-own-cloud deployments (AWS, GCP, Azure). This matters for enterprises with strict compliance, data sovereignty, or performance isolation requirements.
04
Chainstack's Trade-off
Smaller immediate ecosystem: While growing, it lacks the ubiquitous default status of Infura in tutorials and legacy tooling. This matters for teams that heavily rely on out-of-the-box plugin support or have developers accustomed to a specific, Infura-centric workflow.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Infura vs Chainstack: Enterprise Node Hosting
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for enterprise-grade managed node services.
| Metric / Feature | Infura | Chainstack |
|---|---|---|
Enterprise SLA Guarantee | ||
Free Tier Requests/Day | 100,000 | 3,000,000 |
Dedicated Node Starting Price | $350/month | $199/month |
Supported Chains (Est.) | 15+ | 30+ |
Archive Data Access | Add-on | Included |
Private Transaction Routing | ||
WebSocket Endpoints | ||
Average Global API Latency | < 100ms | < 50ms |
ENTERPRISE NODE HOSTING COMPARISON
Infura vs Chainstack: Performance & Reliability Benchmarks
Direct comparison of uptime, performance, and features for Ethereum mainnet node hosting.
| Metric | Infura | Chainstack |
|---|---|---|
Guaranteed Uptime SLA | 99.9% | 99.95% |
Avg. Request Latency (Global CDN) | < 200 ms | < 150 ms |
Free Tier Daily Requests | 100,000 | 3,000,000 |
Archive Data Access | ||
Multi-Cloud Redundancy | ||
Enterprise Support Tiers | 2 (Standard, Premium) | 3 (Business, Premium, Enterprise) |
WebSocket Connections | Limited / Paid | Unlimited / All Plans |
ENTERPRISE COST & PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
Infura vs Chainstack: Enterprise Node Hosting
Direct comparison of pricing, performance, and enterprise features for managed node providers.
| Metric | Infura | Chainstack |
|---|---|---|
Enterprise Plan Starting Price | $2,000/month | $399/month |
Dedicated Node SLA | 99.9% | 99.95% |
Archive Data Access | ||
Trace & Debug APIs | ||
Multi-Region Deployment | ||
Free Tier Requests/Day | 100,000 | 3,000,000 |
Supported Chains | EVM, Solana, Starknet | EVM, Solana, Cosmos, NEAR |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Infura vs Chainstack: Enterprise Node Hosting
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading managed node providers. Decision factors include ecosystem reach, multi-chain strategy, and cost predictability.
01
Infura's Pro: Unmatched Ecosystem Integration
Deep Ethereum & EVM tooling: Native integration with MetaMask, Truffle, Hardhat, and the ConsenSys suite. This matters for teams building on Ethereum Mainnet, Arbitrum, or Polygon who want to minimize integration friction and leverage a mature developer experience.
400K+
Developers
02
Infura's Con: Centralization & Vendor Lock-in Risk
Single-point-of-failure concerns: Reliance on Infura's centralized API endpoints has caused application-wide outages for dependent dApps (e.g., during major Ethereum upgrades). This matters for mission-critical DeFi protocols or exchanges requiring maximum uptime and censorship resistance.
03
Chainstack's Pro: Superior Multi-Chain & Dedicated Node Flexibility
Broad protocol support & deployment control: Supports 30+ chains beyond EVM (e.g., Solana, NEAR, Avalanche, Polygon Supernets) and offers dedicated, full-archive nodes. This matters for enterprises building cross-chain applications or requiring exclusive, high-performance resources with predictable pricing.
30+
Protocols
04
Chainstack's Con: Smaller EVM Ecosystem Mindshare
Less default tooling integration: While growing, Chainstack lacks the default plugin status in major Ethereum dev frameworks that Infura enjoys. This matters for rapid prototyping teams who prioritize out-of-the-box compatibility with popular tools like Hardhat and Foundry over chain diversity.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Infura vs Chainstack: Enterprise Node Hosting
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading managed node providers, based on uptime, cost, and feature support.
01
Infura's Strength: Market Dominance & Ecosystem
Largest developer network: Powers over 400,000 developers and major protocols like MetaMask, Uniswap, and Compound. This matters for teams requiring deep ecosystem integration and battle-tested reliability for public-facing dApps.
02
Infura's Weakness: Centralization & Censorship Risk
Single-point-of-failure history: Infura's 2020 and 2022 outages took down major dApps. Its centralized architecture presents censorship risks (e.g., compliance-based geo-blocking). This matters for protocols prioritizing decentralization and resilience.
03
Chainstack's Strength: Multi-Cloud & Dedicated Nodes
Infrastructure flexibility: Deploys nodes across AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure, reducing vendor lock-in. Offers true dedicated nodes (full RPC/archive control). This matters for enterprises with strict compliance needs (GDPR, HIPAA) and high-throughput applications.
04
Chainstack's Weakness: Smaller Ecosystem & Brand Recognition
Younger market presence: While supporting 25+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche), its developer community and third-party tool integrations are smaller than Infura's. This matters for teams that heavily rely on pre-built plugins and widespread documentation.
05
Infura's Strength: Free Tier & Rapid Onboarding
Generous free plan: 100,000 daily requests on Ethereum mainnet. Seamless integration with MetaMask, Truffle, and Hardhat. This matters for bootstrapped startups and hackathons needing instant, zero-cost access.
06
Chainstack's Strength: Transparent Pricing & Predictable Costs
No surprise billing: Clear per-request pricing and flat-rate dedicated nodes. Offers private blockchain deployments (Hyperledger Besu, Quorum). This matters for enterprise finance teams requiring predictable OPEX and private network support.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Scenario-Based Guide
Infura for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The premium choice for predictable, high-volume enterprise workloads. Strengths: Infura's tiered pricing model (Pay-As-You-Go, Growth, Enterprise) provides clear cost structures for massive scale, with dedicated endpoints and guaranteed request volumes. Its global load balancing and multi-cloud architecture (AWS, Google Cloud) ensure consistent performance under load, critical for applications like high-frequency DEX aggregators (e.g., 1inch) or large-scale data indexing. Trade-off: You pay for this reliability and support. The free tier is limited, and costs can scale linearly with request volume, making it less ideal for unpredictable, spiky traffic patterns on a tight budget.
Chainstack for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The agile, cost-optimized choice for growing projects and variable demand. Strengths: Chainstack's pricing is often more granular and flexible, with a strong free tier and pay-per-request options that can be more economical for early-stage projects or those with fluctuating usage. Its multi-protocol support (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, etc.) from a single account simplifies managing scale across multiple chains without vendor lock-in. Trade-off: While highly reliable, for absolute, SLA-backed uptime guarantees at the highest tiers, Infura's enterprise offerings are more battle-tested.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between Infura and Chainstack to guide your enterprise hosting decision.
Infura excels at providing a battle-tested, developer-first platform for rapid prototyping and high-reliability access to major networks like Ethereum and Polygon. Its deep integration with the MetaMask SDK and status as the default RPC for many wallets creates a powerful network effect. For example, its 99.9%+ service level agreement (SLA) and consistent sub-second latency are proven by supporting billions of daily requests for protocols like Uniswap and Aave, making it the de facto standard for applications requiring maximum ecosystem compatibility.
Chainstack takes a different approach by prioritizing multi-cloud flexibility, granular cost control, and dedicated infrastructure. Its strategy allows deployment across AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure, avoiding vendor lock-in. This results in a trade-off: while its developer tooling is robust, it may lack the seamless integration depth of Infura. However, Chainstack's pay-as-you-go pricing and ability to launch dedicated, full archive nodes for chains like Avalanche or BNB Chain within minutes provide superior performance and cost predictability for high-throughput, production-grade dApps.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing integration friction, leveraging a vast ecosystem, and requiring ironclad reliability for mainstream EVM chains, choose Infura. Its developer experience and proven scale are unmatched. If you prioritize infrastructure control, multi-cloud deployment, transparent pricing, and need dedicated performance for a diverse multi-chain strategy (including non-EVM networks like Near or Starknet), choose Chainstack. Its flexibility and node-level customization cater to enterprises with complex, high-performance requirements.
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