Arweave excels at permanent, one-time-pay data persistence because it uses a novel endowment-based storage model. For example, a single ~$5 payment can store a 1MB frontend bundle for an estimated 200 years, making long-term cost predictability a key metric. This model is ideal for protocols like Solana's Phantom wallet or ArDrive itself, which require guaranteed, unalterable availability for core user interfaces without recurring fees.
LABS
Comparisons
Arweave vs IPFS for Decentralized Frontend Hosting
A technical analysis comparing Arweave's Permaweb and IPFS with pinning services for deploying and serving DApp frontends. We evaluate architecture, cost, performance, and long-term viability for engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Decentralized Frontend Imperative
A data-driven comparison of Arweave and IPFS for hosting immutable, censorship-resistant web applications.
IPFS takes a different approach by creating a content-addressed, peer-to-peer network for distributed file storage. This results in a trade-off: while content is highly available and can be served from any node (enhancing resilience), persistence is not guaranteed unless paired with a pinning service like Pinata or Filecoin. This introduces recurring operational costs and centralization vectors, as seen with Uniswap's frontend migration to IPFS after regulatory pressure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is permanent, cost-predictable archiving for a critical dApp frontend, choose Arweave. If you prioritize high-availability, low-latency distribution and are prepared to manage pinning service contracts, choose IPFS. For maximum resilience, leading projects like Polygon's PoS portal often deploy to both, using IPFS for performance and Arweave as a permanent backup.
tldr-summary
Arweave vs IPFS
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for decentralized frontend hosting at a glance.
01
Arweave: Permanent Storage
One-time, perpetual storage: Pay a single, upfront fee for permanent data persistence (200+ years). This matters for mission-critical frontends (e.g., governance dashboards, documentation) that must remain accessible without ongoing payments or maintenance.
1 Fee
For 200+ Years
04
IPFS: Ecosystem & Flexibility
Massive tooling and pinning services: Leverage services like Pinata, Filebase, or web3.storage for managed persistence, and a global network of public gateways. This matters for teams needing operational flexibility, lower initial cost for experimental projects, or integration with existing stacks like Filecoin for backup.
100+
Public Gateways
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Arweave vs IPFS for Decentralized Frontend Hosting
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for hosting dApp frontends.
| Metric | Arweave | IPFS |
|---|---|---|
Permanent Data Guarantee | ||
Native Incentive Layer | ||
Average Storage Cost (1 MB / 10 years) | ~$0.02 | Variable / $0 |
Default Data Persistence | 200+ years | Until nodes unpin |
Primary Access Protocol | HTTP via Gateways | IPFS Protocol |
Native Smart Contracts | ||
Integration Example | Arweave + Bundlr | IPFS + Pinata / Filecoin |
ARWEAVE VS IPFS FOR DECENTRALIZED FRONTEND HOSTING
Cost Analysis: Upfront Fees vs. Recurring Pins
Direct comparison of cost structure, permanence, and operational overhead for hosting dApp frontends.
| Metric | Arweave | IPFS (with Pinata/Filecoin) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Cost Model | One-time upfront fee | Recurring pinning fees |
Cost for 1GB for 10 Years | ~$5 (one-time) | ~$60+ (recurring) |
Data Permanence Guarantee | ||
Requires Active Pinning | ||
Integration Complexity | Medium (Bundlr, ArDrive) | Low (Pinata SDK, web3.storage) |
Ecosystem Examples | Solana Name Service, Mirror.xyz | Uniswap, Aave, OpenSea |
pros-cons-a
DECENTRALIZED FRONTEND HOSTING
Arweave (Permaweb) vs IPFS
Key architectural and economic trade-offs for hosting dApp frontends, smart contract UIs, and static web assets.
01
Arweave: Permanent Data Guarantee
One-time, upfront payment for 200+ years of storage via endowment model. This creates cryptographic permanence, ideal for immutable dApp frontends (e.g., ArDrive, Permaswap) and critical protocol documentation that must never change or disappear.
200+ years
Guaranteed Storage
03
IPFS: Cost-Effective for Dynamic Content
Pay-as-you-go pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Filebase) offer flexibility for frequently updated frontends. When paired with a decentralized naming layer like ENS, it provides a mutable but resilient hosting solution used by protocols like Uniswap and Aave for their interfaces.
$0.15/GB/month
Avg. Pinning Cost
05
Choose Arweave For...
Truly permanent frontends where "link rot" is unacceptable.
- Uncensorable applications (e.g., decentralized social media, archives).
- Fully self-contained dApps where UI and state live on the same permanent layer.
- Projects with long-term treasury planning who prefer a one-time capital expense.
06
Choose IPFS + Pinning For...
Rapidly iterating applications that require frequent updates.
- Cost-sensitive projects with variable storage needs.
- Maximum compatibility with existing Ethereum/Polygon tooling and libraries.
- Teams needing advanced CDN features (geo-replication, instant purging) via pinning services.
pros-cons-b
Arweave vs IPFS for Decentralized Frontends
IPFS (with Pinning Services) Pros and Cons
Key architectural and economic trade-offs for hosting dApp frontends, wallets, and static sites.
01
IPFS: Lower Upfront Cost
Pay-as-you-go pricing: Costs scale with active usage and pinning duration (e.g., Pinata, Filecoin). This matters for prototyping or applications with uncertain long-term traffic, as you avoid large upfront capital commitment.
02
IPFS: Ecosystem & Tooling Maturity
Established developer tools: Integrations with Fleek, Spheron, and ENS for seamless deployment. This matters for teams prioritizing developer velocity and wanting to leverage a battle-tested stack with extensive documentation and community support.
03
IPFS: Cons - Recurring Cost & Volatility
Ongoing operational expense: Pinning services require continuous payments. If payments lapse, content can disappear. This matters for long-term projects where budget predictability and permanent availability are non-negotiable.
04
IPFS: Cons - Performance Reliance
Dependent on pinner's infrastructure: Speed and global CDN coverage are dictated by your chosen service (e.g., Cloudflare's IPFS Gateway). This matters for global-scale applications requiring guaranteed low-latency performance directly from the decentralized layer.
05
Arweave: Permanent, One-Time Fee
Pay once, store forever: A single upfront payment covers ~200 years of storage via the endowment model. This matters for mission-critical frontends (e.g., decentralized exchanges, DAO governance portals) that must remain accessible indefinitely.
06
Arweave: Built-in Redundancy & Performance
Decentralized persistence layer: Data is replicated across the Permaweb by miners, not a single service. Served via Arweave Gateways (like arweave.net). This matters for censorship-resistant applications needing robust, protocol-level guarantees of availability and speed.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Arweave for DApp Frontends
Verdict: The definitive choice for permanent, immutable hosting. Strengths: Arweave's permaweb guarantees your frontend code (HTML, JS, CSS) is stored forever with a single, upfront fee. This is critical for trustless applications like decentralized exchanges (e.g., Permaswap) or governance dashboards where users must trust the UI hasn't been altered. Integration with Bundlr and ArNS (Arweave Name System) provides a seamless developer experience akin to traditional web hosting. Trade-off: Initial upload cost is higher, and updates require deploying new versions (immutability).
IPFS for DApp Frontends
Verdict: A robust solution for decentralized, versioned hosting with strong ecosystem support. Strengths: IPFS paired with a pinning service (like Pinata, Infura) and a DNSLink offers a highly resilient, content-addressed hosting stack. Tools like Fleek and Spheron abstract away complexity. It's ideal for projects that iterate frequently, as you can update content at the same CID or pin new versions. Widely integrated with ENS and wallets. Trade-off: Requires ongoing pinning service fees for persistence; true permanence isn't guaranteed by the protocol itself.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Arweave and IPFS hinges on your application's core requirement: permanent, one-time storage versus mutable, cost-effective distribution.
Arweave excels at providing permanent, immutable data storage because of its endowment-based economic model, where a single upfront fee guarantees indefinite persistence. For example, deploying a frontend on Arweave via arweave.app or Bundlr ensures your application's code and assets remain accessible for a minimum of 200 years, a critical feature for censorship-resistant dApps and permanent archives. This model provides superior data integrity and predictable, long-term costs.
IPFS takes a different approach by creating a content-addressed, peer-to-peer network for distributed file sharing. This results in a highly resilient and cost-effective system for mutable content, but with no built-in persistence guarantees—data is stored only as long as nodes (pinning services like Pinata, Infura, or Fleek) are incentivized to host it. This makes IPFS ideal for frequently updated applications where operational flexibility and lower initial costs are priorities.
The key trade-off: If your priority is permanent, uncensorable availability and data permanence for a static frontend, choose Arweave. If you prioritize cost-effective distribution of mutable content, frequent updates, and integration with a vast ecosystem of tools (like Filecoin for backup or The Graph for indexing), choose IPFS. For mission-critical dApps requiring absolute assurance against link rot, Arweave's one-time fee is the definitive solution. For dynamic projects prioritizing agility and lower upfront cost, IPFS's pinning service model offers the necessary flexibility.
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