Pyth excels at delivering high-fidelity, low-latency price feeds for mainstream financial assets because of its first-party data model and permissionless pull oracle design. For example, it aggregates data directly from over 100 major exchanges, market makers, and trading firms, securing over $2.5B in value across 500+ price feeds on 50+ blockchains. This model prioritizes security and decentralization for established asset classes like BTC/USD and SOL/USD, making it the default choice for DeFi blue chips like Jupiter and Synthetix.
LABS
Comparisons
Pyth vs RedStone: Price vs Custom Data
A technical comparison of Pyth's high-frequency price feeds versus RedStone's modular, custom data streams. Analyzes push vs pull models, data types, cost structures, and security for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Oracle Data Dilemma
Choosing between Pyth and RedStone hinges on a fundamental choice: standardized financial data versus customizable, high-frequency information.
RedStone takes a radically different approach by using a modular, data-availability-centric architecture. This strategy decouples data publishing from on-chain delivery, allowing it to support a vast array of data types—including custom price feeds, NFT floor prices, and real-world data—with high frequency and low cost. This results in a trade-off: while offering unparalleled flexibility and coverage for long-tail assets, its security model relies on a robust cryptoeconomic staking mechanism and data provider reputation rather than Pyth's direct first-party attestations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is battle-tested security and ultra-low latency for top-tier crypto assets in a high-value DeFi application, choose Pyth. If you prioritize extreme flexibility, cost-efficiency, and access to niche or custom data streams (e.g., for a perp DEX with exotic pairs or a prediction market), choose RedStone.
tldr-summary
Pyth vs RedStone
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A data-first comparison for CTOs and architects choosing between the market's dominant price oracle and its modular, custom-data challenger.
03
Pyth's Strength: Pull vs. Push Security
First-party publisher network with 90+ major exchanges and trading firms (e.g., Jane Street, CBOE) providing signed price data directly to the Pythnet appchain. This matters for maximizing data integrity and minimizing attack vectors, as data is aggregated and attested before being published on-chain.
04
RedStone's Strength: Cross-Chain Agility
Universal data availability: A single signed data package on Arweave can be relayed to 50+ EVM & non-EVM chains (Arbitrum, Starknet, Solana) via lightweight adapters. This matters for multi-chain protocols that need a consistent, low-maintenance data source across their entire deployment.
05
Pyth Trade-off: On-Chain Cost & Scope
Higher base gas costs for storing and updating price feeds directly on-chain. Limited to financial price data. This is a constraint for high-frequency micro-transactions or protocols needing non-financial data streams.
06
RedStone Trade-off: Relayer Dependency & Maturity
Relies on a decentralized relayer network for data delivery, adding a latency layer. Smaller ecosystem with ~$200M TVL secured vs. market leaders. This matters for mission-critical, high-TVl applications where battle-tested security is the primary non-negotiable.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Pyth vs RedStone: Price vs Custom Data Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for oracle data providers.
| Metric | Pyth Network | RedStone |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Focus | High-Frequency Financial Prices | Custom & Multi-Chain Data |
Data Publishers | 90+ (e.g., CBOE, Binance, Jane Street) | 50+ (e.g., Lido, Gauntlet, DIA) |
Update Latency (Solana) | < 400ms | ~1-2 seconds |
Supported Blockchains | 50+ | 60+ |
Data Types | Price Feeds | Price Feeds, Custom Data, Randomness |
Pull Oracle Model | ||
Free Public Data Feeds |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Pyth vs RedStone: Price vs Custom Data
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading oracle approaches. Pyth excels in high-frequency price data, while RedStone offers flexibility for custom data feeds.
01
Pyth's Strength: Ultra-Low Latency Price Feeds
First-party publisher model with 90+ major exchanges and trading firms (e.g., Jane Street, CBOE) publishing directly to the Pythnet. This enables 400ms update intervals and sub-second finality on Solana. This matters for perpetuals DEXs, options protocols, and any application where stale data equals arbitrage losses.
400ms
Update Interval
90+
First-Party Publishers
02
Pyth's Trade-off: Limited Data Diversity
Focus is primarily on financial market data (crypto, FX, equities, commodities). While coverage is deep (500+ feeds), it is not designed for arbitrary off-chain data. This matters if your protocol needs sports scores, weather data, or custom API outputs—you'll need a secondary oracle solution.
500+
Price Feeds
03
RedStone's Strength: Modular & Custom Data Feeds
Data availability layer decouples data sourcing from delivery, allowing protocols to curate their own data feeds from any public API. Supports signed data streams for sports, RWA metrics, or social sentiment. This matters for prediction markets, insurance protocols, and niche DeFi applications requiring bespoke data.
1,000+
Supported Tokens
04
RedStone's Trade-off: Higher Protocol Integration Complexity
Requires integrating the RedStone Core SDK and often a custom relayer to push data on-chain, adding development overhead compared to Pyth's push-model. While gas-efficient via data packing, the pull-model design places more responsibility on the consuming smart contract. This matters for teams with limited engineering bandwidth or those prioritizing fastest time-to-market.
pros-cons-b
PYTH VS REDSTONE
RedStone: Pros and Cons
A data-driven breakdown of strengths and trade-offs between the leading price oracle and the modular data provider.
02
RedStone's Key Strength: Cost Efficiency
Gas-optimized delivery using signed data packages and on-demand validation can reduce on-chain update costs by ~50-80% vs. traditional push oracles. This matters for high-frequency strategies on L2s or applications with many data points.
~50-80%
Gas Savings
04
Pyth's Key Strength: Mainstream Adoption & Liquidity
Dominant market share with $2B+ in secured value and integration with top protocols like Synthetix, Venus, and Drift. This matters for protocols prioritizing security through network effects and requiring deep, battle-tested liquidity for their feeds.
$2B+
Secured Value
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Pyth vs RedStone
Pyth for DeFi
Verdict: The default for high-value, latency-sensitive protocols. Strengths: Unmatched data integrity with 90+ first-party publishers and on-chain attestations. Ultra-low latency (300-400ms) is critical for perpetual DEXs like Drift and Synthetix. Battle-tested with $2B+ in secured value. Supports pull oracle model for gas efficiency on high-throughput chains like Solana. Considerations: Primarily focused on financial market data (crypto, forex, equities). Less flexible for custom data feeds.
RedStone for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for cost-sensitive, multi-chain deployments with diverse data needs. Strengths: Radically lower costs via data availability on Arweave and signed data packages relayed on-demand. Extensive asset coverage (1000+ feeds). Modular design allows easy integration of custom data (e.g., yield indexes, volatility). Proven in production with Lido, Aave, and GMX. Considerations: The pull model adds minor complexity vs. Pyth's push updates. Latency is higher but sufficient for most lending/borrowing markets.
PYTH VS REDSTONE
Technical Deep Dive: Push vs Pull Models
Choosing an oracle often comes down to the core data delivery mechanism: push (Pyth) or pull (RedStone). This comparison breaks down the technical trade-offs for price feeds versus custom data streams.
Pyth is generally faster for on-chain price updates. Its push model publishes data directly to multiple blockchains at sub-second intervals, minimizing latency for high-frequency DeFi. RedStone's pull model requires protocols to request data on-demand, introducing a small request latency but offering fresher data at the moment of execution. For perpetuals or spot trading, Pyth's speed is critical. For less time-sensitive operations like lending, RedStone's model is sufficient.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between Pyth's institutional-grade price feeds and RedStone's modular, custom data streams.
Pyth excels at providing ultra-low-latency, high-fidelity price data for mainstream crypto assets because of its first-party data model and Solana-based pull oracle design. For example, its network aggregates data from over 90 major exchanges and trading firms, securing over $2.5B in total value secured (TVS) and delivering sub-second updates. This makes it the de facto standard for high-throughput DeFi protocols like MarginFi and Jupiter, where price accuracy and speed are non-negotiable for liquidations and swaps.
RedStone takes a radically different approach by decoupling data delivery from consensus via its Arweave-based data availability layer and pull-model oracles. This results in a powerful trade-off: exceptional flexibility and cost-efficiency for long-tail or custom data (e.g., NFT floor prices, real-world asset indices) at the expense of being newer and having less battle-tested adoption for the most latency-sensitive, high-value applications. Its modular design allows developers to easily create and serve their own data feeds.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security and speed for blue-chip asset prices in a high-value DeFi application, choose Pyth. Its proven track record, extensive protocol integrations (Solana, Sui, Aptos, EVM L2s), and institutional data sources minimize oracle risk. If you prioritize cost-effective, customizable data streams for novel assets or niche use cases, choose RedStone. Its modular architecture and gas-efficient delivery are ideal for experimental dApps, gaming economies, or protocols needing data not served by mainstream oracles.
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