IPFS vs Arweave: Decentralized CDN Backends

Decentralized P2P pinning: Data is hosted by nodes (pinners) and can be ephemeral. Ideal for mutable, frequently accessed content like NFT metadata, frontend assets, and social media feeds where caching is key. Requires active pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Fleek) for persistence.

Pay-once, store-forever model: Data is written to a proof-of-access blockchain. Ideal for permanent, immutable archives like legal documents, historical data, and foundational protocol code (e.g., Solana programs). Guarantees persistence without recurring fees.

Initial storage is cheap or free via public gateways. Long-term persistence requires ongoing pinning service fees (~$15/TB/month). Best for projects with predictable, manageable storage growth and budgets for operational overhead.

One-time endowment fee (~$35-50 per GB) covers ~200 years of storage. Best for projects requiring absolute cost predictability and zero maintenance overhead for archival data, like permanent web apps or historical ledgers.

Leverages global CDN caches via public gateways (Cloudflare, dweb.link) for sub-second reads. Native integration with EVM chains (Filecoin), Polygon, and tools like The Graph. Choose for user-facing applications requiring low-latency.

Data permanence is cryptographically guaranteed on-chain. Supports SmartWeave smart contracts for decentralized apps with on-chain logic. Ecosystem includes Bundlr Network for scalable uploads and Irys for provenance. Choose for trust-minimized, permanent backends.

Content-addressed architecture: Data is fetched via its hash (CID), enabling verifiable, location-agnostic retrieval. This is ideal for frequently updated content like NFT metadata or dApp frontends. Lower upfront cost as you pay for pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Filecoin) rather than permanent storage. This matters for projects with evolving assets or tight initial budgets.

No inherent persistence: Data is only stored as long as a node (like your own or a pinning service) chooses to host it. This introduces operational overhead and recurring costs to ensure availability. If a file is unpopular and unpinned, it can become inaccessible. This matters for teams that cannot guarantee long-term infrastructure management.

Truly permanent storage: Data is written to the blockweave with a single, upfront fee that covers storage for a minimum of 200 years, backed by the network's endowment model. This provides absolute data persistence guarantees, critical for archival data, legal documents, or foundational protocol artifacts where deletion is not an option.

Higher upfront capital expenditure: Storing 1GB costs ~$8-$12 upfront versus IPFS's recurring micropayments, which can be prohibitive for large, mutable datasets. Less suited for mutable content: While possible via Bundles (ANS-104) and Evermore, updates are more complex than IPFS. This matters for applications requiring cheap, constant iteration over static, permanent archiving.

200-year minimum data guarantee funded by a single, upfront fee. This creates a permanent data layer ideal for NFT metadata, legal documents, and protocol archives. Projects like Solana and Avalanche use Arweave for immutable ledger backups.

Predictable, one-time payment eliminates recurring hosting bills. The endowment model pays miners from a locked fund, making long-term TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculable. This is critical for dApps with known, finite data like game assets or historical records.

Pay-as-you-go pinning via services like Pinata or Filebase is optimal for frequently updated or temporary content. Lower upfront cost for dynamic web3 frontends, user-generated content, and development testing. The protocol itself is free for unpinned, cached data.

Massive tooling integration with ENS domains, NFT.Storage, and Fleek. Content is addressable by hash (CID), making it ideal for verifiable data across chains. The libp2p stack is a foundational layer for many L1/L2 networks, ensuring deep protocol compatibility.

Permanent storage is expensive upfront. Storing 1TB can cost hundreds of AR tokens initially versus a few dollars per month on IPFS pinning services. This creates a high barrier for large-scale, untested applications where data longevity isn't the primary concern.

Data disappears if unpinned. Relying on public nodes for persistence is unreliable. This shifts the burden to centralized pinning services or complex node orchestration (like IPFS Cluster), reintroducing custodial risk and operational overhead for mission-critical data.