Blockchain Indexers
Indexers evaluated across query cost at real volume, self-host escape hatch, vendor continuity, and indexing speed and coverage.
8providers tracked
8ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
3 November 2026oldest read · due 18 DecIndependent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works
Set your country and amount to see your costs ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which indexers serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Prices in USD. Select your primary deposit currency.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
8 providers match your requirements
Out of 8 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: blockchain indexers that run indexing logic you write yourself and answer queries on the indexed data.Not ranked here: products that do not run indexing logic you write yourself.8 of the 8 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
PO
Ponder
How Ponder was chosen
Leads this ranking on Cost at production query volumeOpen-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service
80 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 8 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Cost at production query volumeSelf-host escape hatch and format portability
Why it leads
- Ponder is 4 points ahead of Goldsky, mainly because it scores higher on its cost at volume and its portability.
- Best in this ranking on cost at volume (10/10; next 8/10)
- Ahead of Goldsky on cost at volume (+5.6 points) and portability (+3.1 points)
Tradeoff
Vendor continuity: 3 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderUsage priceCompare
2
Hosted subgraphs plus streaming pipelines
76 / 100 out of 100
$0.05/unitfee read 3 November 2026 · source
3
Tied for #2 · ordered by tie-break points (1.98 against 0)EN
TypeScript indexer
76 / 100 out of 100
4
Subgraph-spec-compatible hosted indexer
75 / 100 out of 100
6
Indexing processor plus hosted subgraphs
73 / 100 out of 100
$0.03/unitfee read 3 November 2026 · source
7
Decentralised data lake plus self-hostable...
72 / 100 out of 100
$0.05/unitfee read 3 November 2026 · source
8
Tied for #7 · ordered by tie-break points (1.98 against 0)TH
Subgraph protocol
72 / 100 out of 100
$2/unitfee read 3 November 2026 · source
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Cost at volume
Cost at production query volume
30% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Cost at volume (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Ponder | 10 | 80 |
| Ormi 0xGraph | 8 | 75 |
| Goldsky | 7 | 76 |
| Envio (HyperIndex) | 7 | 76 |
| SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) | 7 | 74 |
| Sentio | 7 | 73 |
| SQD (formerly Subsquid) | 6 | 72 |
| The Graph (decentralised network / Subgraph Studio) | 4 | 72 |
Speed and coverage
Indexing speed and chain coverage
20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Speed and coverage (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Goldsky | 7 | 76 |
| Envio (HyperIndex) | 7 | 76 |
| SQD (formerly Subsquid) | 7 | 72 |
| Ponder | 6 | 80 |
| SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) | 6 | 74 |
| Sentio | 6 | 73 |
| Ormi 0xGraph | 5 | 75 |
| The Graph (decentralised network / Subgraph Studio) | 5 | 72 |
Portability
Self-host escape hatch and format portability
25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Portability (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| The Graph (decentralised network / Subgraph Studio) | 9 | 72 |
| Ponder | 8 | 80 |
| SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) | 8 | 74 |
| SQD (formerly Subsquid) | 8 | 72 |
| Goldsky | 6 | 76 |
| Ormi 0xGraph | 6 | 75 |
| Envio (HyperIndex) | 5 | 76 |
| Sentio | 5 | 73 |
Vendor continuity
Vendor continuity and control
25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Vendor continuity (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Envio (HyperIndex) | 7 | 76 |
| Goldsky | 6 | 76 |
| Ormi 0xGraph | 6 | 75 |
| Sentio | 6 | 73 |
| The Graph (decentralised network / Subgraph Studio) | 6 | 72 |
| Ponder | 4 | 80 |
| SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) | 4 | 74 |
| SQD (formerly Subsquid) | 3 | 72 |
All 4 published criteria
Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.
| Provider | ChainChoice Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ponder | 10 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 80 |
| 2 | Goldsky | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 76 |
| 3 | Envio (HyperIndex) | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 76 |
| 4 | Ormi 0xGraph | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 75 |
| 5 | SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) | 7 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 74 |
| 6 | Sentio | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 73 |
| 7 | SQD (formerly Subsquid) | 6 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 72 |
| 8 | The Graph (decentralised network / Subgraph Studio) | 4 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 72 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which blockchain indexers were assessed and left out.
FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read
See the arithmetic
Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 1 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
Cost at production query volume7.2·109.6
Self-host escape hatch and format portability6−186.4
Vendor continuity and control6−343.2
Indexing speed and chain coverage4.8−163.8
Σ methodology points23.0/32
Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted
Why it ranks first
Why Ponder leads this category right now
Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service. Strongest on cost at production query volume (10/10): Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software with no hosted plan and no vendor fee; at any query volume the only costs are the operator's own Postgres database and RPC access. Weakest on vendor continuity and control (4/10): The Monad Foundation acquired the team behind Ponder on 17 February 2026; the team says it will keep developing Ponder as open source, and the repository remains active. Published facts: No commercial pricing exists. The Ponder README (github.com/ponder-sh/ponder, read 2026-11-03) states "Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software."; no hosted or cloud offering is documented on ponder.sh, and the self-hosting guide states "Ponder works best…
Best for
Cost at production query volume — 10/10
Main tradeoff
MIT and free means you are the operator: no SLA, no on-call, no backups, and every Postgres failure and RPC rate-limit is yours. The larger surprise is governance — since February 2026 the people who decide Ponder's roadmap are paid by the Monad Foundation, so a non-Monad EVM team's priorities now sit behind a competing chain's.
Verify before signup
No commercial pricing exists. The Ponder README (github.com/ponder-sh/ponder, read 3 November 2026) states "Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software."; no hosted or cloud offering is documented on ponder.sh, and the self-hosting guide states "Ponder works best with a Postgres database running in the same private network." Your only costs are your own Postgres and RPC.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
What query volume are you actually planning for, not launching with?
If this vendor shut down next quarter, could you self-host the same mapping?
How often will you need to reindex from genesis, and how long can that take?
Quick picks
Strong options in this category
Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.
Best overall
PO
Ponder
Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service
Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service. Strongest on cost at production query volume (10/10): Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software with no hosted plan and no vendor fee; at any query volume the only costs are the operator's own Postgres database and RPC access. Weakest on vendor continuity and control (4/10): The Monad Foundation acquired the team behind Ponder on 17 February 2026; the team says it will keep developing Ponder as open source, and the repository remains active. Published facts: No commercial pricing exists. The Ponder README (github.com/ponder-sh/ponder, read 2026-11-03) states "Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software."; no hosted or cloud offering is documented on ponder.sh, and the self-hosting guide states "Ponder works best…
Best for: Cost at production query volume — 10/10
Cost at production query volume · weight 30%10/10Self-host escape hatch and format portability · weight 25%8/10Vendor continuity and control · weight 25%4/10Indexing speed and chain coverage · weight 20%6/10
Quick pick
Goldsky
Hosted subgraphs plus streaming pipelines; billed on worker-hours
Hosted subgraphs plus streaming pipelines; billed on worker-hours. Strongest on cost at production query volume (7/10): Goldsky charges no per-query fee: on Scale three subgraph workers are free, then $0.05 per worker-hour, and entity storage is metered at about $3.89 per 100,000 entities a month above the first ~100,000, with no cap, so the bill grows with stored data. Weakest on self-host escape hatch and format portability (6/10): Goldsky runs standard subgraphs on the same WASM processing layer as graph-node and publishes migration guides, so subgraph code moves in and out; its own hosted runtime is not available to self-host. Published price: Goldsky pricing summary (docs.goldsky.com/pricing/summary, read 2026-11-03).
Best for: Cost at production query volume — 7/10
Cost at production query volume · weight 30%7/10Self-host escape hatch and format portability · weight 25%6/10Vendor continuity and control · weight 25%6/10Indexing speed and chain coverage · weight 20%7/10
Quick pick
Tied for #2 · ordered by tie-break points (1.98 against 0)
EN
Envio (HyperIndex)
TypeScript indexer with HyperSync data layer; flat monthly hosting tiers
TypeScript indexer with HyperSync data layer; flat monthly hosting tiers. Strongest on cost at production query volume (7/10): Envio bills flat hosting tiers with no query meter: 30M queries a month (about 694 a minute) needs Production Medium at $300 a month, which allows 1,000 queries a minute; Production Small at $70 caps at 250 a minute. Weakest on self-host escape hatch and format portability (5/10): HyperIndex ships under Envio's own non-OSI licence, which allows self-hosting but bars commercial hosting for others, and no other managed host runs HyperIndex code. Published price: Envio HyperIndex hosting pricing (envio.dev/pricing/hosting, read 2026-11-03).
Best for: Cost at production query volume — 7/10
Cost at production query volume · weight 30%7/10Self-host escape hatch and format portability · weight 25%5/10Vendor continuity and control · weight 25%7/10Indexing speed and chain coverage · weight 20%7/10
Quick pick
Ormi 0xGraph
Subgraph-spec-compatible hosted indexer; flat per-subgraph monthly pricing
Subgraph-spec-compatible hosted indexer; flat per-subgraph monthly pricing. Strongest on cost at production query volume (8/10): Ormi bills a flat $75 per subgraph a month on Production (15 requests a second sustained, about 39M a month) or $150 at 60 a second, and states that billing is not based on query volume or entity count. Weakest on indexing speed and chain coverage (5/10): Ormi's pricing page claims 45+ networks and its chain table lists 42 rows, 27 of them mainnets; no published independent benchmark includes Ormi's runtime. Published price: Ormi pricing page (ormilabs.com/pricing, read 2026-11-03), flat per-subgraph plans: Free Trial "$0 for 14 days" (15 requests/second); Production "$75* per subgraph / mo" ("$0.10 / hr"), 15 requests/second sustained, unlimited entities and subgraphs, standard…
Best for: Cost at production query volume — 8/10
Cost at production query volume · weight 30%8/10Self-host escape hatch and format portability · weight 25%6/10Vendor continuity and control · weight 25%6/10Indexing speed and chain coverage · weight 20%5/10
Considered and not ranked
None left out by name
We assessed 8 products here and rank all 8. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 3 November 2026.
What this ranking does not assess
- Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on query cost at production volume, the self-host escape hatch and format portability, vendor continuity, and indexing speed and chain coverage.
Data checked Nov 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
Direct answer
What is the best indexer in 2026?
Ponder ranks #1 overall for blockchain indexers on ChainChoice. Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Self-host escape hatch and format portability · 25% (Ponder 8/10, Goldsky 6/10, Envio (HyperIndex) 5/10)Scored by Vendor continuity and control · 25% (Ponder 4/10, Goldsky 6/10, Envio (HyperIndex) 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Cost at production query volume (30%), Indexing speed and chain coverage (20%).
FAQs
3 questions readers ask before choosing blockchain indexers.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing indexers
Why is vendor continuity weighted so heavily?
Because in this category it is the base rate, not the exception. Products here have been acquired, handed to new operators, or sunset outright within a year or two of launch — including one backed by an acquisition and an SLA.
Is a hosted service or a self-hosted framework better?
They fail differently. Hosted removes operational work and adds vendor risk; self-hosted does the reverse. What is scored is whether you have the option at all — an open licence and published self-host instructions.
Does subgraph compatibility matter if I am not using The Graph?
It matters as an exit route. Logic written to a spec that at least one other host accepts can move; logic written to a proprietary format cannot.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best indexers pick
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best blockchain indexers in 2026
The best indexer depends on your query volume and on how badly a vendor exit would hurt. Continuity is not a tail risk in this category — five of the eight products a buyer would shortlist changed owner or operator inside fourteen months, and one was switched off entirely despite carrying a 99.9% SLA. Portability is scored beside it for the same reason: an open licence and a spec-compatible mapping are what turn a vendor's exit into a migration rather than a rewrite.
Best overall
PO
Ponder
Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service
Data checked Nov 2026
Open-source TypeScript EVM indexing framework; no hosted service. Strongest on cost at production query volume (10/10): Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software with no hosted plan and no vendor fee; at any query volume the only costs are the operator's own Postgres database and RPC access. Weakest on vendor continuity and control (4/10): The Monad Foundation acquired the team behind Ponder on 17 February 2026; the team says it will keep developing Ponder as open source, and the repository remains active. Published facts: No commercial pricing exists. The Ponder README (github.com/ponder-sh/ponder, read 2026-11-03) states "Ponder is MIT-licensed open-source software."; no hosted or cloud offering is documented on ponder.sh, and the self-hosting guide states "Ponder works best…
Best for: Cost at production query volume — 10/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research