Chainstack excels at providing enterprise-grade, infrastructure-level RBAC by deeply integrating with cloud IAM frameworks like AWS IAM and Azure AD. This allows CTOs to enforce policies such as IP whitelisting, project-level API key scoping, and granular permissions for actions like deploying nodes or accessing specific chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche). For teams requiring SOC2 compliance or managing multi-cloud deployments, this native integration reduces security overhead and aligns with existing corporate governance models.
LABS
Comparisons
Chainstack vs Moralis: Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) Granularity
A technical comparison of permission models for enterprise teams, analyzing custom roles, resource-level controls, and SSO integration to secure blockchain infrastructure access.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Why RBAC Granularity is a Core Infrastructure Decision
A deep dive into how Chainstack and Moralis approach access control, a critical factor for security, compliance, and team scalability.
Moralis takes a different, product-focused approach by centering RBAC around its unified API and dashboard. Permissions are managed through team roles (Admin, Member, Viewer) within the Moralis admin console, controlling access to streams, cloud functions, and database instances. This results in a streamlined, developer-friendly experience that accelerates prototyping, but offers less fine-grained control over the underlying node infrastructure compared to Chainstack's cloud-native model.
The key trade-off: If your priority is infrastructure security and enterprise compliance within a complex cloud environment, choose Chainstack. Its IAM integration is a decisive advantage. If you prioritize rapid development velocity and a unified API layer for a product team, Moralis provides sufficient, simplified access controls to get to market faster.
tldr-summary
Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) Granularity
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of RBAC capabilities for enterprise-grade access management.
01
Chainstack: Project & Team-Level Control
Hierarchical, project-first model: Permissions are scoped to Projects and Teams. Ideal for organizations with distinct product lines or departments (e.g., a DeFi protocol managing separate frontend and analytics teams).
- Key Feature: Granular API key permissions (read-only, write, admin) within a project.
- Best For: Structuring access around development environments and isolating production data.
02
Moralis: Unified User & API Key Management
User-centric, cross-product access: Manage permissions for individual users across all Moralis services (Streams, Auth, NFTs) from a single dashboard.
- Key Feature: Assign users to roles (Admin, Member, Viewer) with predefined permission sets for the entire Moralis suite.
- Best For: Simpler teams where developers need holistic access to multiple backend services without complex project segregation.
03
Choose Chainstack For
Complex, multi-project enterprises requiring strict data isolation and audit trails.
- Use Case: A financial institution running separate nodes for trading, compliance, and R&D. Chainstack's model allows creating isolated projects with tailored access for each unit, minimizing blast radius.
04
Choose Moralis For
Integrated product teams using the full Moralis stack who prioritize speed and unified management.
- Use Case: A startup building a Web3 game using Moralis Streams, Auth, and Cloud Functions. A single 'Developer' role grants a new hire all necessary permissions instantly.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
RBAC Feature Matrix: Chainstack vs Moralis
Direct comparison of Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) granularity and management features.
| RBAC Feature / Metric | Chainstack | Moralis |
|---|---|---|
Granular API Key Permissions | ||
Project-Level Access Control | ||
Team Member Role Definitions | Admin, Member, Viewer | Admin, Member |
IP Allowlisting / Restriction | ||
Custom Permission Sets | ||
Audit Logs for User Actions | ||
Integration with SSO (e.g., Okta) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Chainstack vs Moralis: Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) Granularity
A technical breakdown of RBAC implementation for enterprise teams managing blockchain infrastructure access.
01
Chainstack: Native, Infrastructure-First RBAC
Granular project and network-level controls: Permissions are tied directly to blockchain nodes, RPC endpoints, and dedicated services. This allows for precise scoping like "Read-only access to the Polygon Mainnet node" or "Full admin for the Avalanche Fuji testnet project." This matters for security-conscious enterprises (e.g., DeFi protocols, custodians) that need to enforce strict separation between production and development environments and comply with internal security policies.
Project-Level
Primary Scope
Node/Service
Permission Target
02
Chainstack: Cons
Limited application-layer permissioning: RBAC is optimized for infrastructure management, not for defining user roles within a dApp's business logic. You cannot natively create roles like "Premium User" or "DAO Treasurer" within the Chainstack dashboard. This matters for application developers who need to embed access control directly into their product experience and manage it alongside their backend. They must build this layer separately using smart contracts or a separate auth service.
03
Moralis: Unified, Product-Centric Roles
Integrated user and admin role management: Moralis combines infrastructure access with product-level permissions through its Admin API and Cloud Functions. You can define custom roles that control both access to backend services (like the Streams API) and data visibility within your application. This matters for rapidly scaling B2C or B2B apps (e.g., NFT platforms, GameFi) where you need to manage different user tiers, moderators, and internal teams from a single dashboard.
User & Admin
Role Types
API + Data
Control Scope
04
Moralis: Cons
Less granular infrastructure isolation: While you can manage who can use APIs, you have less direct control over the underlying node infrastructure compared to a dedicated RPC provider. Permissions are more abstracted to the Moralis service layer. This matters for infrastructure engineers who require fine-grained audit trails, IP whitelisting per team, or direct compliance controls at the blockchain client level. The abstraction can be a limitation for strict enterprise IT governance.
pros-cons-b
Chainstack vs Moralis
Moralis RBAC: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of Role-Based Access Control granularity for enterprise blockchain API management.
01
Chainstack Pro: Multi-Chain, Multi-Role Granularity
Project-level role separation: Define distinct roles (Admin, Member, Viewer) across multiple chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) within a single project. This matters for enterprise teams managing complex, multi-chain dApps where a developer needs write access to Polygon but only read access to the mainnet deployment.
02
Chainstack Pro: Infrastructure-Level Control
Direct node and endpoint permissions: Admins can assign roles with specific permissions for dedicated nodes, shared nodes, and WebSocket endpoints. This is critical for protocols with high-security requirements, ensuring only authorized services can access production-grade infrastructure, aligning with SOC 2 compliance needs.
03
Moralis Pro: Unified API Simplicity
Single API key, global permissions: Moralis uses a master key for its unified API, simplifying initial setup. This matters for smaller teams or rapid prototyping where managing complex permissions across NFT, balance, and token APIs is a lower priority than development speed.
04
Moralis Pro: Application-Focused Roles
Team member management within apps: RBAC is centered on Moralis 'Apps', allowing you to add team members with Admin or Member roles for specific applications. This fits product-focused squads where the unit of work is a discrete application (e.g., a specific NFT marketplace) rather than underlying infrastructure.
05
Chainstack Con: Steeper Management Overhead
Granularity requires configuration: The powerful, multi-layer permission system (Project > Network > Node) requires more upfront setup and ongoing management. This can be a drawback for lean teams that prioritize getting endpoints live quickly over nuanced access control.
06
Moralis Con: Limited Infrastructure Control
Abstracted from raw node access: Moralis's API abstraction means you cannot assign roles at the individual node or chain connection level. This is a trade-off for enterprises needing audit trails or compliance proofs tied to specific infrastructure resources, as control is at the application layer.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Scenario-Based Breakdown
Chainstack for Enterprise Teams
Verdict: The definitive choice for structured, security-first organizations.
Strengths: Chainstack's RBAC is built for complex organizational hierarchies. It supports custom roles with fine-grained permissions down to the individual API key level, allowing precise control over who can access specific networks (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet, Polygon), methods (e.g., eth_sendRawTransaction), and resources. This is critical for enterprises with separate development, QA, and production environments, or teams managing multi-chain deployments. Integration with SAML/SSO providers like Okta streamlines user management at scale.
Moralis for Enterprise Teams
Verdict: Streamlined for speed, but lacks the granular control required for strict compliance or large teams. Strengths: Moralis offers a simpler, project-based permission model ideal for small to mid-sized product teams moving fast. Access is typically managed per API key per project, which is sufficient for many startups. However, the inability to create custom roles or restrict specific RPC methods within a project can be a limiting factor for enterprises with stringent internal security policies or regulatory requirements.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown of Chainstack and Moralis RBAC models to guide your infrastructure choice.
Chainstack excels at providing infrastructure-native, project-level control because its RBAC is deeply integrated with its core node and data services. For example, permissions can be scoped to specific blockchain networks (Ethereum Mainnet, Polygon), node types (full, archive), and API endpoints, allowing precise governance over resource consumption and data access. This model is critical for teams managing multi-chain deployments or requiring strict isolation between development, staging, and production environments.
Moralis takes a different approach by offering application-centric, product-level permissions within its unified Web3 API platform. This strategy results in a trade-off: while it provides excellent granularity over Moralis-specific products like the Streams API or Auth API, it abstracts the underlying node infrastructure. Permissions are managed around API keys, webhook destinations, and cloud functions, which simplifies setup for application developers but offers less direct control over the blockchain client layer compared to Chainstack.
The key trade-off: If your priority is infrastructure governance, cost control per chain, and direct node access for specialized clients (e.g., Erigon, Nethermind), choose Chainstack. Its model prevents team members from inadvertently spinning up expensive archive nodes. If you prioritize rapid application development, unifying backend services under a single API key management layer, and granular control over Moralis-specific features, choose Moralis. Its RBAC is optimized for product velocity within its ecosystem.
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