Provider at a glance
- Category
- RPC & Node Services
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- infura.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 59 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Infura (Consensys)
Ethereum and multichain RPC
RPC & Node Services
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 9 RPC & node services in the published ranking
59
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Infura (Consensys) right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Real cost per 1M identical calls6/10 here; the category best is 10
- Documented incident record and chain coverage3/10 here; Alchemy scores 7
- Archive debug and trace access4/10 here; Ankr scores 7
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling3/10 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 Infura (Consensys) cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Usage per month
- 10
- Plan fee
- $0
$332 below the median of 8 priced RPC & node services.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Infura (Consensys)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Infura (Consensys)
Compare all 4- 5Alchemy6 points above · stronger on reliability and coverage (7 against 3)65$63
- 6QuickNode6 points above · stronger on reliability and coverage (7 against 3)65$662
- 7AnkrLevel on score · stronger on throughput headroom (7 against 3)59$12
For your setup
Find out if Infura (Consensys) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Infura (Consensys) 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 Infura (Consensys) ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
356+6.726.010#5/9Loading evidence…
204+2.565.07#6/9Loading evidence…
203+1.926.09#8/9Loading evidence…
253+2.405.07#8/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Ankr, #7
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 57–61 and ranks #7–#8
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 Infura (Consensys)’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 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Ankr+161#8 → #7
Archive debug and trace access 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Ankr+160#8 → #7
Published throughput and self-serve ceiling 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Ankr+160#8 → #7
Documented incident record and chain coverage 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Ankr+161#8 → #7
Smallest climb: real cost per 1M identical calls 6 → 7 passes Ankr, #7.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Real cost per 1M identical calls — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Documented incident record and chain coverage — 3/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Archive debug and trace access — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The quota is daily, not monthly, and that changes the product. Team's 75M credits/day cannot borrow from a quiet week, so a mint or a launch spike hits a hard wall the same day — and WebSocket connections are cut outright when you hit it. At 80 credits per eth_call the entire published price list tops out near 28M eth_call/month, meaning any real growth forces an unpriced enterprise negotiation. Separately, Infura's own archive-access marketing page still advertises the retired request-based model ('100,000 Requests/Day, Includes up to 25,000 Archive Requests/Day') that contradicts the live credit-based pricing docs.
Competitive position
Where Infura (Consensys) 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#7 / 910.2 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 Infura (Consensys) leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling#8 / 9
- Documented incident record and chain coverage#8 / 9
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.
Ankr#7 of 9 · score 59 · same score
Infura (Consensys) leads on
- Real cost per 1M identical calls6 vs 2
Ankr leads on
- Archive debug and trace access7 vs 4
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling7 vs 3
Scenario cost: Ankr is +$12 against Infura (Consensys).
QuickNode#6 of 9 · score 65 · 6.0 points ahead
Infura (Consensys) leads on
- Real cost per 1M identical calls6 vs 4
QuickNode leads on
- Archive debug and trace access6 vs 4
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling4 vs 3
- Documented incident record and chain coverage7 vs 3
Largest single reason QuickNode is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: QuickNode is +$662 against Infura (Consensys).
Alchemy#5 of 9 · score 65 · 6.0 points ahead
Infura (Consensys) leads on
- Real cost per 1M identical calls6 vs 4
Alchemy leads on
- Published throughput and self-serve ceiling6 vs 3
- Documented incident record and chain coverage7 vs 3
Largest single reason Alchemy is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Alchemy is +$63 against Infura (Consensys).
Against the leader
81 vs 59 · gap 22.0Why BlockPI ranks above Infura (Consensys)
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; a row-above bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (21.8) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisBlockPIGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.218.6−21.8, 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 · w35610−4.48, worse
Archive debug and trace access · w2046−1.28, worse
Published throughput and self-serve ceiling · w2039−3.84, worse
Documented incident record and chain coverage · w2535−1.60, worse
Net5981−22.0≈
Your scenario
What Infura (Consensys) 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
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.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$3328 of 9 rows priced · Infura (Consensys) −$332 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Infura (Consensys)Infura (Consensys) is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
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 #7 to #8 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 6 · 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 3 · 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 3 · 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 (Infura (Consensys) 3/10): 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
- Infura pricing page (infura.io/pricing), read 22 October 2026 for the 21 October 2026 re-read; unchanged since 14 September 2026. Core "Free" (0 per month), "3 Million" daily credits, "500 credits/second", 1 API key. Developer "US$50 / month", "15 Million" daily credits, "4K credits/second", 5 API keys, adds "Debug / Trace API". Team "US$225 / month", "75 Million" daily credits, "40K credits/second", unlimited keys. Enterprise "Custom". Add-on "US$200/month" for "55 million additional credits." (a monthly block; no per-unit overage rate is published). The page FAQ still says the Free plan "includes 6 million credits per day with a throughput limit of 2,000 credits per second", conflicting with its own table. Credit costs (docs, Ethereum): eth_call 80, eth_getLogs 255, eth_blockNumber 80, eth_getBalance 80, eth_sendRawTransaction 80, eth_getBlockByNumber 80, eth_chainId 5, trace_transaction 300, debug_traceTransaction 1000, eth_getBlockReceipts 1000; default "Initially set to 80 credits".Infura (Consensys) — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDInfura (Consensys) — 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
- Consensys's Terms of Use, which govern Infura (consensys.io/terms-of-use, read 22 October 2026), require users to represent that they are "not located in any country subject to a comprehensive sanctions program implemented by the United States" and not on UN, US, EU or UK restricted-party lists; the terms name no country. Global self-serve.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Infura (Consensys): 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 59, #8 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:infura:2026.10.18:a6f69a8367c9
Are you Infura (Consensys)? 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.