Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
LABS
Comparisons

Chainlink Feeds vs Pyth Feeds: Delivery

A technical analysis comparing Chainlink's on-demand pull model with Pyth's low-latency push model. We examine the architectural trade-offs in performance, cost, and security for protocol architects and engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide in Oracle Delivery

The fundamental choice between Chainlink and Pyth hinges on their opposing approaches to data delivery: on-demand pull versus continuous push.

Chainlink Data Feeds excel at providing on-demand, high-fidelity data because they are updated by a decentralized network of nodes only when on-chain deviation thresholds are breached. This pull-based model, secured by the Chainlink Network and its OCR consensus, prioritizes cost-efficiency and security for less volatile assets, maintaining over 99.9% uptime for core feeds. For example, a stablecoin protocol can rely on a Chainlink ETH/USD feed updated every hour or when price moves >0.5%, minimizing gas costs.

Pyth Network takes a radically different approach with its low-latency, push-based delivery. Over 90 first-party publishers (like CBOE and Jane Street) publish price data to Pythnet, which is then continuously pushed to over 40 blockchains via Wormhole. This results in sub-second updates and high throughput, ideal for perpetuals protocols on Solana or Avalanche, but requires applications to manage the gas cost of constant on-chain storage for the latest price.

The key trade-off: If your priority is cost-optimized, secure data for mainstream DeFi assets with less frequent updates, choose Chainlink. If you prioritize ultra-low latency and high-frequency data for derivatives or leveraged trading, choose Pyth.

tldr-summary
Chainlink vs Pyth: Data Delivery

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

Critical architectural and operational differences that determine which oracle network fits your protocol's needs.

01

Chainlink: Decentralized & Verifiable Delivery

Pull-based, on-chain verification: Data is stored on-chain and fetched by contracts via latestRoundData. Every update is cryptographically signed by a decentralized network (e.g., 31+ nodes for ETH/USD). This matters for protocols requiring maximum security and censorship resistance, like lending platforms (Aave, Compound) or reserve-backed stablecoins.

31+
Nodes per feed
On-chain
Data verification
02

Chainlink: Latency & Cost Trade-off

Higher latency, predictable cost: Updates are pushed on-chain at regular intervals (e.g., every 1-24 hours). While this can mean slower price discovery, gas costs are borne by the oracle network, not the dApp. This matters for non-latency-sensitive, cost-predictable applications like insurance protocols or treasury management.

1-24h
Update frequency
Oracle-paid
Gas cost
03

Pyth: Low-Latency Push Delivery

Push-based, cross-chain streaming: Price updates are published to a permissioned Pythnet, then relayed as signed messages to consumer chains via Wormhole. Contracts receive data directly into storage. This matters for high-frequency trading, perpetuals, and options where sub-second latency is critical (e.g., Hyperliquid, Drift Protocol).

< 500ms
Median latency
Push
Delivery model
04

Pyth: Cost & Freshness Model

User-paid updates, maximum freshness: dApps pay to pull the latest signed price from the Pyth contract, ensuring they get the most recent data. This creates a pay-for-freshness model ideal for derivatives and spot DEXes where being first to an accurate price is worth the gas (e.g., Synthetix, MarginFi).

User-paid
Update cost
Real-time
Data freshness
CHAINLINK FEEDS VS PYTH FEEDS

Head-to-Head Feature Matrix: Delivery Models

Direct comparison of oracle data delivery mechanisms for CTOs and architects.

MetricChainlink FeedsPyth Feeds

Data Update Latency

~1-5 minutes

< 400 ms

Primary Data Source

Decentralized Node Operators

First-Party Publishers

On-Chain Delivery Model

Push (Aggregator updates on-chain)

Pull (Consumers request latest price)

Price Feed Coverage

1,000+ assets

500+ assets

Supported Blockchains

20+ (EVM, non-EVM)

50+ (Solana, EVM, Sui, Aptos, Cosmos)

Historical Data Access

Via Chainlink Data Streams

On-demand via Pythnet

Free Tier Availability

true (for Solana)

pros-cons-a
Delivery Mechanism Comparison

Chainlink Pull Model: Pros and Cons

Key strengths and trade-offs of Chainlink's on-demand pull model versus Pyth's push model for price feed delivery.

01

Chainlink: Cost Control for Users

On-demand data retrieval: Users pay gas only when they request an update, not for every new price. This matters for low-frequency protocols like insurance, options, or governance, where data updates may be needed only weekly or monthly, optimizing operational costs.

~$5-50
Typical Update Cost
02

Chainlink: Predictable Freshness

Deterministic data age: The updatedAt timestamp is on-chain, allowing contracts to verify exactly how stale the data is and enforce freshness thresholds. This matters for risk-sensitive DeFi like lending (Aave, Compound) where using outdated prices can lead to undercollateralized positions.

1-2 hrs
Max Staleness Threshold
03

Pyth: Ultra-Low Latency

Continuous push updates: Data is written on-chain with every price change (e.g., on Solana, Sui) or via Wormhole to other chains, achieving sub-second latency. This matters for high-frequency trading (DEXs, perpetuals) and liquid staking derivatives where arbitrage depends on millisecond-fresh prices.

< 500ms
Typical Update Latency
05

Chainlink: Potential Staleness Risk

Requires active management: If a contract doesn't call latestRoundData() frequently, it may read outdated data. This matters for automated systems that must budget for and schedule update transactions, adding operational overhead and potential points of failure.

06

Pyth: Unpredictable User Cost

Costs are socialized: While users don't pay per update, the network pays for continuous writes. This can lead to higher base protocol costs or inflation, which matters for cost-sensitive applications on high-throughput chains where write costs are a significant portion of fees.

pros-cons-b
CHAINLINK PULL VS. PYTH PUSH

Pyth Push Model: Pros and Cons

A technical breakdown of the fundamental delivery mechanisms, highlighting key trade-offs for latency, cost, and architectural complexity.

01

Pyth Push: Ultra-Low Latency

Direct on-chain updates: Publishers push price updates directly to the Pythnet appchain, which are then relayed to consumer chains via Wormhole. This enables sub-second price updates critical for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., perpetuals on Hyperliquid, MarginFi). This matters for protocols where stale data directly equates to arbitrage losses.

< 1 sec
Update Latency
02

Pyth Push: Predictable Cost Model

Cost borne by publishers: Data providers pay the gas to publish updates to Pythnet, insulating consumer protocols from volatile on-chain gas fees. This creates a predictable, near-zero operational cost for dApps reading prices. This matters for scaling high-throughput applications on Solana or Avalanche where gas spikes can cripple pull-model updates.

03

Chainlink Pull: Maximum Freshness Control

Consumer-initiated updates: DApps or keepers explicitly request an update, guaranteeing the data is fresh at the exact moment of their transaction (e.g., a liquidation). This eliminates reliance on a push schedule. This matters for low-liquidity or volatile assets where you cannot trust a recently-pushed value, and for secure settlement layers like Ethereum L1.

04

Chainlink Pull: Architectural Simplicity & Security

Decoupled data retrieval: The oracle network updates an on-chain Aggregator contract only when paid to do so. This simplifies security audits (state changes are explicit) and aligns with Ethereum's pull-centric design. This matters for protocols prioritizing battle-tested, minimal trust assumptions over absolute speed, such as money markets (Aave) or reserve-backed stablecoins.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model

Chainlink Feeds for DeFi

Verdict: The default for battle-tested, high-value applications. Strengths: Unmatched security model with decentralized node operators, proven across $30B+ in DeFi TVL. Supports off-chain reporting (OCR) for aggregated data and Data Streams for low-latency updates. Ideal for lending protocols (Aave, Compound), stablecoins, and perpetuals where oracle manipulation risk is paramount. Integration is straightforward via Chainlink Automation for heartbeat and deviation triggers.

Pyth Feeds for DeFi

Verdict: Superior for latency-sensitive, high-frequency derivatives. Strengths: Pull-based delivery (Pythnet) provides sub-second updates with on-demand verification, crucial for perps and options on Solana, Sui, and Aptos. Lower latency reduces front-running risk in fast markets. The Pyth Entropy service offers a verifiable randomness solution. Best for protocols like Drift Protocol and Hyperliquid where speed is a competitive advantage.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation

Choosing between Chainlink and Pyth for oracle delivery hinges on your protocol's tolerance for latency versus its need for absolute, verifiable finality.

Chainlink Feeds excel at providing cryptographically verifiable on-chain data because they deliver price updates directly on the destination chain. This results in a slower, but final, delivery mechanism with a median update time of 5-15 seconds. For example, a DeFi protocol like Aave uses Chainlink for its core price feeds, where the certainty of a finalized, on-chain value is critical for secure liquidation logic and user trust, even at the cost of higher gas fees per update.

Pyth Feeds take a different approach by using a high-frequency, pull-based model. Data is first published to a low-latency off-chain network (Pythnet) and then made available for on-demand retrieval. This results in a trade-off: sub-second latency and lower on-chain costs for consumers, but it introduces a dependency on relayers and requires protocols to actively "pull" the latest attested price, adding complexity to contract design.

The key trade-off: If your priority is security-first design, verifiable on-chain provenance, and integration simplicity for core protocol logic, choose Chainlink. Its on-chain delivery is the industry standard for high-value DeFi. If you prioritize ultra-low latency, cost-efficiency for high-frequency applications (e.g., perps, options), and can manage the pull-model architecture, choose Pyth. Its model is optimized for performance-sensitive trading venues like Hyperliquid and Synthetix Perps.

ENQUIRY

Build the
future.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected direct pipeline
Chainlink vs Pyth: Oracle Delivery Models Compared | ChainScore Comparisons