Provider at a glance
- Category
- Blockchain Indexers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- subquery.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 74 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)
Multichain indexing SDK
Blockchain Indexers
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 8 blockchain indexers in the published ranking
74
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Self-host escape hatch and format portability8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Cost at production query volume7/10 here; Ormi 0xGraph scores 8
- Vendor continuity and control4/10 here; Sentio scores 6
- Indexing speed and chain coverage6/10 here; SQD (formerly Subsquid) scores 8
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 indexer shows where it lands for you.
What will SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)
Compare all 4- 5Ormi 0xGraphLevel on score · stronger on cost at volume (8 against 7)74
- 6SQD (formerly Subsquid)Level on score · stronger on speed and coverage (8 against 6)74
- 7Sentio1 point below · stronger on vendor continuity (6 against 4)73
For your setup
Find out if SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) 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 indexerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.2 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
307+6.727.510#5/8Loading evidence…
258+6.407.09#2/8Loading evidence…
254+3.205.57#6/8Loading evidence…
206+3.846.08#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Goldsky, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–76 and ranks #4–#7
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 SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)’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.
Cost at production query volume 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Goldsky+278#4 → #2
Vendor continuity and control 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Goldsky+379#4 → #2
Indexing speed and chain coverage 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Goldsky+378#4 → #2
Cost at production query volume 7 → 6 on its ladder · Ormi 0xGraph passes it−172#4 → #7
Self-host escape hatch and format portability 8 → 7 on its ladder · Ormi 0xGraph passes it−173#4 → #7
Vendor continuity and control 4 → 3 on its ladder · Ormi 0xGraph passes it−173#4 → #7
Smallest climb: cost at production query volume 7 → 9 passes Goldsky, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Self-host escape hatch and format portability — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Cost at production query volume — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Vendor continuity and control — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Indexing speed and chain coverage — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying from two companies. The SDK and network are SubQuery's; the managed service you actually deploy to, and the invoice, are OnFinality Pte Ltd's since January 2025. The 60% compute price cut that came with the handover was paired with a brand-new per-entity storage charge, so entity-heavy projects were not the ones that saved.
Competitive position
Where SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#4 / 815.1 of 30 · best 17.3
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) leads
- Self-host escape hatch and format portability#2 / 8
Where it trails
- Vendor continuity and control#6 / 8
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.
Ormi 0xGraph#5 of 8 · score 74 · same score
SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) leads on
- Self-host escape hatch and format portability8 vs 6
- Indexing speed and chain coverage6 vs 5
Ormi 0xGraph leads on
- Cost at production query volume8 vs 7
- Vendor continuity and control5 vs 4
Largest single reason SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Ormi 0xGraph has no verified pricing for this scenario.
SQD (formerly Subsquid)#6 of 8 · score 74 · same score
SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) leads on
- Cost at production query volume7 vs 6
- Vendor continuity and control4 vs 3
SQD (formerly Subsquid) leads on
- Indexing speed and chain coverage8 vs 6
Largest single reason SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: SQD (formerly Subsquid) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sentio#7 of 8 · score 73 · 1.0 point behind
SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) leads on
- Self-host escape hatch and format portability8 vs 5
Sentio leads on
- Vendor continuity and control6 vs 4
Largest single reason SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Sentio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 74 · gap 6.0Why Ponder ranks above SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)
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 6.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisPonderGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.117.3−5.7, 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 criterionThisPonderPoints
Cost at production query volume · w30710−2.88, worse
Net7480−6.0
Your scenario
SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) is not priced for this 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
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 September 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 14 September 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 #7 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Cost at production query volumestrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—14 September 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.Self-host escape hatch and format portabilitystrength 8 · weight 25Report an error—14 September 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.Vendor continuity and controlstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—14 September 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.Indexing speed and chain coveragestrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—14 September 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
- 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% (SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) 8/10)Scored by Vendor continuity and control · 25% (SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) 4/10)
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- OnFinality Indexer Service, effective 8 January 2025: base "US$0.08 per deployment hour"; additional compute units "US$0.07 per deployment hour"; additional chains "US$0.07 per deployment hour"; storage entities — "First 500k storage entities free", 500k–10M at "$0.00479 per 100,000 entities per deployment hour", beyond 10M at "$0.00137 per 100,000 entities per deployment hour". Metered hourly, invoiced weekly on Standard and monthly on Partner; page assumes 730 hours/month. A free plan exists for new users. Queries are not a billing factor. SubQuery's own /pricing page returns HTTP 404.SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDSubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 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
- Global self-serve via OnFinality Pte Ltd (Singapore); the SubQuery SDK is GPL-3.0 and self-hostable. No country restrictions appear on OnFinality's pricing page or terms page.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service): 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.
11 methodology entries
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 74, #4 of 8. 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 indexers:subquery:2026.10.18:8d53ed879b74
Are you SubQuery (managed service now OnFinality Indexer Service)? 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.