Provider at a glance
- Category
- RPC & Node Services
- Entity
- All 4 Alchemy products
- Official website
- alchemy.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 65 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Alchemy
Managed RPC and data APIs
RPC & Node Services
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 9 RPC & node services in the published ranking
65
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $63 your cost/yr
Is Alchemy right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Documented incident record and chain coverage7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Real cost per 1M identical calls4/10 here; Helius scores 8
- Archive debug and trace access4/10 here; Ankr scores 7
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling6/10 here; Ankr scores 7
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best RPC provider shows where it lands for you.
What will Alchemy cost you?
$63 your cost/yr
- Usage per month
- 10
- Price per unit
- $0.53
- Plan fee
- $0
$269 below the median of 8 priced RPC & node services.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Alchemy?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Alchemy
Compare all 4- 4Helius1 point above · stronger on real cost per million calls (8 against 4)66$600
- 6QuickNodeLevel on score · stronger on archive and trace access (6 against 4)65$662
- 7Ankr6 points below · stronger on archive and trace access (7 against 4)59$12
For your setup
Find out if Alchemy fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Alchemy lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best RPC providerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Alchemy ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (16.5 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
354+4.486.010#6/9Loading evidence…
204+2.565.07#6/9Loading evidence…
206+3.846.09#5/9Loading evidence…
257+5.605.07#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Helius, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 63–67 and ranks #4–#6
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Alchemy’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Real cost per 1M identical calls 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Helius+167#5 → #4
Documented incident record and chain coverage 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Helius+166#5 → #4
Archive debug and trace access 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Helius+267#5 → #4
Published throughput and self-serve ceiling 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Helius+267#5 → #4
Real cost per 1M identical calls 4 → 3 on its ladder · QuickNode passes it−163#5 → #6
Archive debug and trace access 4 → 3 on its ladder · QuickNode passes it−164#5 → #6
Published throughput and self-serve ceiling 6 → 5 on its ladder · QuickNode passes it−164#5 → #6
Smallest climb: real cost per 1M identical calls 4 → 5 passes Helius, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Documented incident record and chain coverage — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Real cost per 1M identical calls — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Archive debug and trace access — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You will find the archive data free and then discover you cannot query it the way you planned. Trace and Debug both require pay-as-you-go or enterprise, and the Trace API's trace and stateDiff types list only Ethereum Mainnet and Sepolia (Arbitrum has its own arbtrace_* namespace), so check trace coverage chain by chain before you build on it. Also budget from the CU table, not the plan: at the flat $0.525 per 1M CU, eth_call (26 CU) costs $13.65 per million calls but eth_getLogs (60 CU) costs $31.50, so a log-heavy indexer pays more than twice what an eth_call workload suggests.
Competitive position
Where Alchemy leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 914.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 912.4 of 30 · best 18.6
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Alchemy leads
- Documented incident record and chain coverage#1 / 9
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
QuickNode#6 of 9 · score 65 · same score
Alchemy leads on
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling6 vs 4
QuickNode leads on
- Archive debug and trace access6 vs 4
Scenario cost: QuickNode is +$599 against Alchemy.
Helius#4 of 9 · score 66 · 1.0 point ahead
Alchemy leads on
- Archive debug and trace access4 vs 3
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling6 vs 5
- Documented incident record and chain coverage7 vs 4
Helius leads on
- Real cost per 1M identical calls8 vs 4
Largest single reason Helius is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Helius is +$537 against Alchemy.
Ankr#7 of 9 · score 59 · 6.0 points behind
Alchemy leads on
- Real cost per 1M identical calls4 vs 2
- Documented incident record and chain coverage7 vs 3
Ankr leads on
- Archive debug and trace access7 vs 4
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling7 vs 6
Largest single reason Alchemy is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Ankr is −$51 against Alchemy.
Against the leader
81 vs 65 · gap 16.0Why BlockPI ranks above Alchemy
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 16.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisBlockPIGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.418.6−16.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisBlockPIPoints
Real cost per 1M identical calls · w35410−6.72, worse
Archive debug and trace access · w2046−1.28, worse
Published throughput and self-serve ceiling · w2069−1.92, worse
Documented incident record and chain coverage · w2575+1.60, better
Net6581−16.0
Your scenario
What Alchemy costs on your scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Usage per month · your input10
Price per unit · published rate$0.53
Plan fee · published rate$0
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$63
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$3328 of 9 rows priced · Alchemy −$269 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Infura (Consensys)Alchemy costs +$63 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Infura (Consensys)
1 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #4 to #6 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Real cost per 1M identical callsstrength 4 · weight 35Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Archive debug and trace accessstrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Published throughput and self-serve ceilingstrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Documented incident record and chain coveragestrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Liveness failure (Alchemy 7/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Documented incident record and chain coverage · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Exit 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: Real cost per 1M identical calls (35%), Archive debug and trace access (20%), Published throughput and self-serve ceiling (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Alchemy pricing page (alchemy.com/pricing), read 22 October 2026 for the 21 October 2026 re-read. Free (0 per month): "Free 30M CU per month", "15 requests per second", throughput "300 CU/s (15)" (2026-09-14: 25 requests per second, 500 CU/s). Pay as You Go: "$0.525/1M CUs", "Starting from 300 requests/second", "10,000 CU/s (300)"; "Pay as You Go includes 300 RPS (10,000 CU/s). Above that, each additional 5,000 CU/s block costs $160 per month."; "Self-serve capacity ends at 30,000 CU/s". Enterprise: contact sales, "Starting from 1000 requests/second". CU costs (docs): eth_chainId 0, eth_blockNumber 10, eth_getBalance 20, eth_call 26, eth_sendRawTransaction 40, debug_traceTransaction 40, trace_transaction 40, eth_getLogs 60. Debug and Trace APIs require Pay as You Go or Enterprise.Alchemy — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAlchemy — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Alchemy's Terms of Service (legal.alchemy.com, "Last Updated: June 27, 2025", read 22 October 2026), section 14.9, exclude anyone subject to US, EU or UK sanctions or export controls "including by being located in a country or region that is the subject of comprehensive sanctions, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, the restricted regions of Ukraine, and any others added in future". Only those Ukrainian regions are excluded, not all of Ukraine.
Legal entity on file: Alchemy, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Alchemy: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 65, #5 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt rpc_nodes:alchemy:2026.10.18:a6f69a8367c9
Are you Alchemy? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.