Quick Evaluation of Node Service Provider Alternatives for Ethereum Mainnet and L2s

[erichfi]

Objective:

Conduct a rapid evaluation of alternatives to Alchemy for node services on Ethereum mainnet and Layer 2 solutions (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync, etc.). The goal is to identify potential options that meet basic performance, cost, and scalability needs within a short timeframe.

Scope:

This is a time-boxed spike (1-2 days) focused on gathering high-level insights into alternatives, without deep performance testing or detailed cost analysis.

Key Questions:

• [ ] Which node service providers support Ethereum mainnet and major L2s?
• [ ] What are the basic pricing models and estimated costs?
• [ ] Are there any standout features or advantages over Alchemy that would warrant further investigation?

Evaluation Criteria:

Basic Performance & Reliability:

• General uptime and SLAs (as reported publicly)
• Coverage for Ethereum mainnet and L2s
• Basic service limits (rate limits, max requests)

High-Level Cost Overview:

• Pricing model (e.g., free tier, pay-as-you-go, monthly subscription)
• Rough cost estimates for typical usage

Key Features:

• Unique tools, analytics, or ecosystem integrations
• Developer experience (API, SDK, docs availability)
• Ease of migration from Alchemy

Support & Ecosystem:

• Availability of developer support and community resources
• L2 support and plans for future expansion

Providers to Evaluate:

1. Infura
2. QuickNode
3. Blockdaemon
4. Moralis
5. Chainstack

Deliverables:

• A summary table comparing key aspects of each provider.
• Recommendation on whether any alternatives warrant deeper investigation or if Alchemy remains the best fit.

Timeline:

• Day 1: Gather information from public resources (websites, docs) on the five selected providers.
• Day 2: Summarize findings and provide a recommendation based on high-level evaluation.

Acceptance Criteria:

• A comparison table of 5 providers based on uptime, cost, L2 support, and standout features.
• A brief recommendation on whether any alternatives are worth exploring further.

[tim-schultz]

Supported Chains

Provider	Ethereum Mainnet	Arbitrum	Optimism	zkSync Era	Polygon	Base	Linea	StarkNet	Scroll	Polygon zkEVM	Mantle	Immutable zkEVM
Infura	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
QuickNode	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Blockdaemon	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Moralis	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Chainstack	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Alchemy	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

[tim-schultz]

Conclusion

• Since we require a high amount of CU Chainstack seems like a great option. It appears to provide more affordable requests in general. It also has some bulk data and hosted node options that could solve a lot of our problems.
• Other than that Alchemy seems as though it is the next best option based on pricing

Thoughts

• Alchemy generally offers lower compute unit costs within its base plans, resulting in significant savings compared to Infura and QuickNode.
• Moralis provides competitive pricing with lower CUs per call for certain methods but offers fewer included compute units than Alchemy.
• Chainstack is the most cost-effective for high-volume and archive data usage due to low overage costs.
• Compute unit costs are crucial when comparing services; lower costs per unit can lead to substantial savings, especially for high-frequency API calls.

Beyond Cost Considerations:

• Feature Requirements: Ensure the provider supports all necessary APIs and networks for your project.
• Performance and Reliability: Consider the provider's uptime guarantees and response times.
• Support and Resources: Evaluate the level of customer support and developer resources offered.

Recommendations

1. For Moderate Usage with Cost Efficiency:

   • Alchemy is recommended due to its lower compute unit costs and generous included usage.

2. For High-Volume or Archive Data Needs:

   • Chainstack is more cost-effective and suitable for projects requiring extensive data retrieval.

3. For Specific API Needs or Higher Throughput:

   • Moralis may be preferable if you need specific APIs like Market Data API or higher API throughput.

4. Always Assess Your Specific Needs:

   • Calculate your expected API usage to determine the most cost-effective provider.
   • Consider additional factors like feature sets, support, and network coverage.

Summary Table of Total Costs

Provider	Total Cost for Usage Scenario	Savings Compared to Alchemy
Infura	$21.33	-$13.92
QuickNode	$250.75	-$201.75
Moralis	$49	$0
Alchemy	$7.41	N/A
Chainstack	$514	-$523

*Negative savings indicate that Alchemy is less expensive than the compared provider for the given usage scenario.

Conclusion

When comparing compute unit costs and total expenses for specific API usage scenarios:

• Alchemy offers the most cost-effective solution for moderate to high API usage within its included plan limits.
• Chainstack is more economical for high-volume, specialized needs like archive data access.
• Evaluate all aspects, including cost per compute unit, included usage, overage fees, and service features, to choose the provider that best fits your project's requirements.

Note: All prices and calculations are based on information available as of October 2023. Providers may update their pricing and plans, so it's essential to verify the current details before making a decision.

[tim-schultz]

Standout features

If pricing is reasonable these could be great options

• BlockDaemon: provides a node as a service feature. I requested pricing for these features. They manage deployment and maintenance and we can use it however we want - https://www.blockdaemon.com/nodes/dedicated-nodes
• Chainstack - raw web3 data https://chainstack.com/raw-web3-data-for-your-warehouse/. I have reached out regarding pricing and limits - chainstack also has node hosting as a service https://chainstack.com/dedicated-nodes/

[tim-schultz]

Moving to blocked until I talk with some of the providers to get more information around bulk data access