High-frequency oracles like Chainlink Data Streams and Pyth Network excel at delivering ultra-low-latency data for DeFi derivatives and perpetuals. They achieve sub-second updates by pushing pre-verified data directly to on-chain storage or dedicated low-latency networks, enabling protocols like GMX and Synthetix to offer near real-time pricing. This model is optimized for applications where a few hundred milliseconds of lag can result in significant arbitrage losses or liquidations.
LABS
Comparisons
High-Frequency vs On-Demand: Oracles
A technical comparison of push (high-frequency) and pull (on-demand) oracle models, analyzing performance, cost, security, and optimal use cases for protocols like Chainlink, Pyth, and API3.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Oracle Data Delivery Dilemma
Choosing between high-frequency and on-demand oracle models is a foundational architectural decision that impacts cost, latency, and data freshness.
On-demand oracles like Chainlink's classic decentralized oracle networks (DONs) and API3's dAPIs take a different approach by fetching and aggregating data only when a user transaction requests it. This pull-based strategy results in higher per-call latency (typically 2-15 seconds) but dramatically reduces operational costs for data that isn't needed constantly. This is ideal for less time-sensitive functions like settlement pricing, insurance payouts, or NFT valuation, where cost efficiency trumps speed.
The key trade-off: If your priority is ultra-low latency and constant data freshness for high-frequency trading, choose a high-frequency model. If you prioritize cost efficiency and flexibility for sporadic, settlement-critical data, an on-demand oracle is superior. The decision hinges on your application's specific tolerance for latency versus its gas budget.
tldr-summary
High-Frequency vs On-Demand: Oracles
TL;DR: Core Trade-offs at a Glance
Key architectural and economic trade-offs between continuous-update and request-response oracle models.
01
High-Frequency Oracles (e.g., Chainlink Data Streams, Pyth Network)
Continuous, low-latency data: Sub-second updates with 100-400ms finality (Pyth). This matters for perps DEXs (e.g., dYdX v4, Hyperliquid) and options protocols requiring real-time price feeds for liquidations and mark prices.
< 400ms
Update Latency
100+
Feeds (Pyth)
02
High-Frequency Trade-off: Cost & Centralization
High operational cost: Continuous data publishing requires robust, always-on infrastructure, leading to higher costs for data providers and, ultimately, dApp integrators. This matters for budget-conscious projects or those with infrequent data needs, where paying for constant updates is inefficient.
03
On-Demand Oracles (e.g., Chainlink Functions, API3 dAPIs, Witnet)
Cost-efficient & customizable: Pay-per-call model for arbitrary API data. This matters for insurance protocols (e.g., fetching flight status for Nexus Mutual), RWA tokenization (fetching asset NAVs), and gaming (verifying off-chain events).
Pay-per-call
Pricing Model
Any API
Data Source
04
On-Demand Trade-off: Latency & Complexity
Higher latency per request: Each data fetch involves a full request-response cycle (often 2-20 seconds). This matters for high-frequency trading or lending markets where slow price updates can lead to arbitrage losses or failed liquidations. Adds complexity for time-sensitive logic.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
High-Frequency vs On-Demand Oracles: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and performance metrics for oracle data delivery models.
| Metric | High-Frequency Oracles | On-Demand Oracles |
|---|---|---|
Data Update Frequency | Sub-second to 1-2 seconds | Per transaction request |
Typical Latency (Request to On-chain) | < 400 ms | 2-10 seconds |
Primary Use Case | Perpetuals, Spot DEXs, Lending | Insurance, Options, Custom Data |
Gas Cost Model | Amortized across all users | Paid by the requester |
Infrastructure Overhead | High (Continuous operation) | Low (Idle until request) |
Example Protocols | Pyth, Chainlink Data Streams | Chainlink Functions, API3 dAPIs |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
High-Frequency vs On-Demand Oracles: Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of operational and data cost models for oracle architectures.
| Metric | High-Frequency (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth) | On-Demand (e.g., API3, Tellor) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Cost Model | Subscription / Data Feed | Pay-per-Call / Request |
Typical Data Update Frequency | 400ms - 60 sec | On user transaction |
Avg. Cost per Data Point | $0.10 - $1.00+ | $0.50 - $5.00+ |
Infrastructure Overhead | High (Continuous operation) | Low (Triggered execution) |
Gas Cost Burden | Oracle Provider | dApp / End User |
Best For Use Case | DEXs, Lending, Derivatives | Insurance, NFTs, Custom Data |
Example Protocol | Chainlink Data Feeds | API3 dAPIs |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
High-Frequency (Push) Oracles vs. On-Demand (Pull) Oracles
A data-driven breakdown of the two dominant oracle models, highlighting core trade-offs in latency, cost, and infrastructure complexity for protocol architects.
01
High-Frequency (Push) Oracle Pros
Sub-second data freshness: Continuously pushes updates (e.g., every 400ms for Pyth, 1-2s for Chainlink Data Streams). This is critical for perpetual DEXs (like dYdX v4) and high-frequency trading where stale prices cause liquidations.
Guaranteed availability: Data is on-chain before your transaction executes, eliminating request latency and failed fetches. Essential for automated market makers (AMMs) and lending protocols that need constant price checks.
< 1 sec
Typical Latency
Always On
Data Availability
02
High-Frequency (Push) Oracle Cons
High, fixed operational cost: Continuously writing data to chain consumes gas regardless of usage (e.g., Pyth on Solana, Chainlink Data Streams). This leads to higher protocol overhead, especially on high-gas L1s like Ethereum.
Data relevance inefficiency: Pushes all data feeds continuously, even during low-activity periods. This is wasteful for less active protocols or exotic assets with infrequent trades, where an on-demand model would be more cost-effective.
High Fixed
Cost Structure
Low
Cost Efficiency (Idle)
03
On-Demand (Pull) Oracle Pros
Dramatically lower operational cost: Protocols pay only when data is requested (e.g., Chainlink's CCIP, API3 dAPIs, Tellor). Ideal for insurance protocols, options platforms, and NFT valuation where price checks are event-driven (e.g., on policy expiry or liquidation).
Unlimited data variety: Can fetch any verifiable data point on-demand without pre-configuring a continuous stream. Enables custom computations and access to long-tail assets not supported by push oracles.
Pay-Per-Use
Cost Structure
Unlimited
Data Variety
04
On-Demand (Pull) Oracle Cons
Higher per-request latency & complexity: User/contract must initiate and wait for data (~2-10 seconds for a full round). Adds UX friction and is unsuitable for real-time applications. Requires more complex error-handling logic in smart contracts.
Unpredictable transaction costs: Gas fees for the data fetch are borne by the end-user and vary with network congestion. This creates poor UX for end-users and complicates gas estimation for applications like prediction markets or games.
2-10 sec
Request Latency
User-Pays
Cost Burden
pros-cons-b
High-Frequency vs On-Demand
On-Demand (Pull) Oracles: Pros & Cons
Key architectural trade-offs and performance characteristics for CTOs evaluating oracle dependencies.
01
High-Frequency (Push) Oracle Strength
Ultra-low latency for critical data: Continuously pushes price updates (e.g., Chainlink Data Streams, Pyth Network). Latency is often < 500ms. This is non-negotiable for perpetual DEXs (GMX, dYdX) and high-frequency trading protocols where stale data means instant arbitrage losses.
< 500ms
Update Latency
1000+ TPS
Peak Throughput
02
High-Frequency (Push) Oracle Weakness
High, fixed operational cost: Infrastructure (keepers, relayers) runs 24/7, incurring gas fees regardless of usage. This leads to higher protocol overhead and can be wasteful for applications with sporadic data needs (e.g., insurance claims, monthly settlement).
$10K+/month
Est. Base Cost
03
On-Demand (Pull) Oracle Strength
Radical cost efficiency: Data is fetched only when a user transaction requires it (e.g., API3 dAPIs, Tellor). Users pay the gas, leading to near-zero protocol overhead. Ideal for NFT lending (Arcade.xyz), low-frequency derivatives, and any application where data updates are user-initiated.
~$0
Protocol Overhead
04
On-Demand (Pull) Oracle Weakness
Higher latency per request: Data is not pre-loaded. The end-user experiences added latency (2-10 seconds) for the on-chain fetch and verification. This creates a poor UX for real-time applications and is unsuitable for automated liquidations or fast-moving markets.
2-10s
Request Latency
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which Oracle Model
High-Frequency Oracles for DeFi
Verdict: Essential for AMMs, Perps, and Lending. Strengths: Real-time price feeds (e.g., Chainlink Data Streams, Pyth Network) with sub-second updates and low latency are non-negotiable for liquidations, low-slippage swaps, and derivative pricing. They prevent oracle front-running and ensure protocol solvency. High-frequency models like Pyth's pull-based updates are battle-tested for high-throughput environments like Solana and Sui. Trade-offs: Higher operational costs and reliance on a specialized, high-performance validator set. Not all data (e.g., FX rates, illiquid assets) requires this speed.
On-Demand Oracles for DeFi
Verdict: Optimal for Settlements, Insurance, and Governance. Strengths: Cost-effective and highly secure for non-time-sensitive operations. Protocols like MakerDAO use on-demand oracles (e.g., custom medianizers, Tellor) for end-of-day price feeds to set collateral ratios or settle prediction markets. They minimize gas fees for data that changes slowly. Trade-offs: Latency of minutes to hours makes them unsuitable for trading. Requires robust dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., UMA's Optimistic Oracle).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between high-frequency and on-demand oracles is a strategic decision based on your application's data needs, cost sensitivity, and decentralization requirements.
High-frequency oracles like Chainlink Data Feeds and Pyth Network excel at providing continuous, low-latency data for DeFi primitives because they maintain persistent on-chain price updates. For example, a decentralized perpetual exchange like GMX requires sub-second price updates with 99.9%+ uptime to manage liquidations and funding rates securely. This model, however, incurs continuous gas costs for relayers and can be overkill for applications that only need periodic data verification.
On-demand oracles like API3's dAPIs and Tellor take a different approach by fetching data only when a user request or smart contract function call triggers it. This results in a significant trade-off: dramatically lower operational costs for infrequent data needs (e.g., a prediction market settling weekly) but introduces higher latency and potential request fees per call. The architecture shifts cost from the protocol to the end-user transaction.
The key trade-off is between cost structure and data freshness. If your priority is ultra-low latency and constant data availability for high-value DeFi operations (lending, derivatives, algorithmic stablecoins), choose a high-frequency oracle. If you prioritize minimizing baseline operational costs for applications with sporadic or event-driven data needs (insurance, NFT valuations, supply chain proofs), an on-demand oracle is strategically superior. For maximal resilience, a hybrid approach using Chainlink for core prices and a fallback like Tellor for dispute resolution is becoming a best practice.
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