Infura excels at providing a stable, enterprise-grade gateway to Ethereum and other major L1/L2 networks. Its core strength is reliability, backed by a long operational history and a focus on core RPC services. For example, its 99.9%+ uptime SLA and deep integration with the MetaMask SDK make it a default choice for wallets and applications where predictable access is non-negotiable. Its multi-chain support for networks like Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism through a unified API simplifies development.
LABS
Comparisons
Infura vs Alchemy: Ethereum RPCs 2026
A technical comparison of Infura and Alchemy, analyzing performance, cost, developer experience, and strategic trade-offs for enterprise-grade Ethereum infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Ethereum's Infrastructure Layer
A data-driven comparison of Infura and Alchemy, the two dominant RPC providers, to guide infrastructure decisions for high-stakes applications.
Alchemy takes a different approach by building a comprehensive developer platform beyond basic RPC calls. This results in superior tooling for data-intensive and complex applications. Its Enhanced APIs—like alchemy_getTokenBalances and NFT APIs—reduce development time significantly. The platform's focus on performance is evident in metrics like higher requests per second (RPS) tolerance and advanced features like Webhook alerts and the Mempool Watcher, which are critical for MEV-sensitive or real-time dApps.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proven stability, broad multi-chain simplicity, and a conservative tech stack, choose Infura. If you prioritize advanced data APIs, superior performance for high-throughput applications, and a richer suite of developer tools, choose Alchemy. Your decision hinges on whether you need a robust pipe or a full-featured workshop.
tldr-summary
Infura vs Alchemy: Ethereum RPCs 2026
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core strengths and trade-offs for enterprise infrastructure decisions.
01
Infura: Enterprise Reliability
Specific advantage: Proven 99.9%+ uptime SLA backed by ConsenSys. This matters for high-frequency trading protocols and enterprise dApps where predictable, contract-backed reliability is non-negotiable.
99.9%+
Uptime SLA
02
Infura: Broad Chain Support
Specific advantage: Native RPCs for 15+ EVM and non-EVM chains (e.g., Polygon, Arbitrum, Starknet). This matters for multi-chain protocols like cross-chain bridges (e.g., Across) or wallets needing a single provider for diverse ecosystems.
03
Alchemy: Superior Developer Experience
Specific advantage: Enhanced APIs like alchemy_getTokenBalances and NFT API reduce custom indexing by ~70%. This matters for NFT marketplaces (e.g., OpenSea) and DeFi dashboards requiring complex, real-time state queries.
70%
Less Indexing
04
Alchemy: Performance & Observability
Specific advantage: Sub-100ms p95 latency and granular debug tools (e.g., Trace API, Mempool Visualizer). This matters for real-time applications like on-chain gaming (e.g., Dark Forest) and protocol debugging where speed and visibility are critical.
< 100ms
p95 Latency
05
Infura: Compliance & Security Focus
Specific advantage: SOC2 Type II compliance and enterprise-grade data privacy controls. This matters for regulated institutions and TradFi integrations where audit trails and data governance are mandatory.
06
Alchemy: Scalability & Innovation
Specific advantage: Handles 5x the request volume of average providers and consistently ships new features (e.g., WebSockets, Notify). This matters for high-growth dApps and new primitives (e.g., Farcaster) that push scalability limits.
5x
Request Volume
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Infura vs Alchemy: Feature Comparison 2026
Direct comparison of key performance, reliability, and developer features for Ethereum RPC providers.
| Metric / Feature | Infura | Alchemy |
|---|---|---|
Uptime SLA (Enterprise) | 99.95% | 99.99% |
Avg. Global Latency | < 100 ms | < 50 ms |
Free Tier Daily Requests | 100,000 | 300,000 |
Enhanced APIs (NFTs, Transfers) | ||
WebSocket Connections | ||
Private Transaction Routing | ||
Tracer API Support | ||
Archival Data Depth | Full | Full+ (Enhanced Archive) |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Infura vs Alchemy: Performance & Reliability Benchmarks (2026)
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Ethereum RPC providers.
| Metric | Infura | Alchemy |
|---|---|---|
99.9% Uptime SLA | ||
Avg. Request Latency (P95) | < 300 ms | < 200 ms |
Free Tier Daily Requests | 100,000 | 300 million |
Enhanced APIs (NFT, Transfers) | ||
WebSocket Connections | Limited | Unlimited |
Max Requests per Second (Paid Tier) | 25,000 | 330,000 |
Data Archive Access | Add-on | Included |
pros-cons-a
ETHEREUM RPC PROVIDER COMPARISON
Infura vs Alchemy: Key Differentiators
A data-driven breakdown of strengths and trade-offs for two leading infrastructure providers. Use this to match provider capabilities to your protocol's specific requirements.
01
Infura's Core Strength: Enterprise Provenance
Consensys-backed reliability: Operated by the team behind MetaMask and the Truffle Suite, offering institutional-grade stability and a 99.9%+ SLA. This matters for enterprise applications and financial protocols where uptime is non-negotiable and regulatory familiarity is a plus.
02
Infura's Trade-off: Centralization & Rate Limits
Single-point-of-failure risk: Historical outages have cascaded to major dApps. Free tier imposes strict rate limits (100k requests/day), and paid plans throttle at tiered request/sec caps. This matters for high-throughput DeFi protocols or applications requiring extreme redundancy.
03
Alchemy's Core Strength: Developer-First Performance
Superior throughput and tooling: Benchmarks show higher requests/sec and lower latency. Offers enhanced APIs like alchemy_getAssetTransfers and Webhook-based Mempool streaming. This matters for NFT platforms, real-time dashboards, and applications building complex data layers on top of basic RPC calls.
04
Alchemy's Trade-off: Cost at Scale
Pricing complexity at high volume: While the free tier is generous, enterprise-scale usage can become costly compared to running self-hosted nodes or using emerging decentralized RPC networks. This matters for protocols with predictable, massive query volumes (e.g., block explorers, on-chain analytics) where marginal cost efficiency is critical.
pros-cons-b
ETHEREUM RPC PROVIDER COMPARISON
Infura vs Alchemy: Pros and Cons
A data-driven breakdown of strengths and trade-offs for the two dominant RPC providers. Use this to align your infrastructure choice with your protocol's specific needs.
02
Alchemy: Advanced Data & Reliability
Industry-leading uptime (99.9%+) and data consistency: Powers over $200B in on-chain transaction volume. Their proprietary Supernode architecture provides enhanced mempool visibility and transaction simulation. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound) and applications where data accuracy is non-negotiable.
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Infura: Cost Predictability & Simplicity
Straightforward, usage-based pricing tiers: Easier to model costs for high-throughput, predictable workloads without complex feature gating. Their free tier is generous for early-stage development. This matters for bootstrapped projects or teams with stable, high-volume read operations who need budget certainty.
05
Alchemy: Higher Cost for Advanced Features
Premium pricing for premium tools: Access to the full suite of enhanced APIs, WebSocket connections, and highest rate limits comes at a significant cost. This matters for startups or projects with tight infrastructure budgets where core JSON-RPC calls are sufficient.
06
Infura: Less Specialized for Niche Use Cases
Generalist approach over specialization: While reliable, its API offerings are less extensive than Alchemy's for niche data like NFT ownership history or decoded log data. This matters for applications focused on gaming, social, or complex analytics that require bespoke data endpoints.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Alchemy for DeFi & Trading
Verdict: The superior choice for high-frequency, mission-critical applications.
Strengths: Unmatched reliability and data integrity for real-time trading. Alchemy's Enhanced APIs (e.g., alchemy_getAssetTransfers, alchemy_getTokenBalances) provide atomic, non-reverting calls essential for accurate portfolio tracking and arbitrage bots. Their WebSocket connections offer sub-100ms block notifications, crucial for front-running MEV strategies and liquidation engines. The Notify Suite can trigger alerts for specific contract events (e.g., Uniswap V3 pool price ticks, Aave health factor changes).
Infura for DeFi & Trading
Verdict: A reliable baseline, but lacks specialized tooling for advanced strategies. Strengths: Provides stable, consistent RPC endpoints with a strong SLA. Suitable for standard DEX aggregators or wallet balance checks that don't require ultra-low latency or complex event filtering. However, developers must build their own indexers for advanced transaction decoding, adding complexity.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown for CTOs choosing between the two dominant Ethereum RPC providers based on reliability, performance, and ecosystem alignment.
Infura excels at enterprise-grade reliability and broad chain support because of its mature infrastructure and deep integration with the ConsenSys ecosystem. For example, its 99.9%+ historical uptime SLA and seamless access to MetaMask, Truffle, and Linea make it the default choice for risk-averse teams building on multiple EVM chains. Its predictable, usage-based pricing model is well-suited for applications with stable, forecastable traffic patterns.
Alchemy takes a different approach by optimizing for developer experience and high-performance data access. This results in superior real-time data consistency and advanced tooling like the Alchemy Notify webhook system and Enhanced APIs for NFTs and transactions. Its performance edge is measurable, often delivering lower latency and higher request throughput for data-intensive dApps like DeFi aggregators and NFT marketplaces, though its premium features command a higher cost.
The key trade-off: If your priority is battle-tested reliability, multi-chain deployment, and tight ConsenSys stack integration, choose Infura. If you prioritize maximizing dApp performance, accessing enriched on-chain data, and leveraging cutting-edge developer tooling, choose Alchemy. For most new, performance-sensitive protocols, Alchemy's superior APIs provide a competitive edge, while established enterprises with complex infrastructure needs may find Infura's stability and ecosystem partnerships more strategic.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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