Skip to content

Alchemy vs QuickNode

Alchemy is cheaper than QuickNode for almost any realistic workload. It is 3.3× cheaper per standard read, cheaper on getProgramAccounts, cheaper on writes, and its free tier is three times larger and renews.

QuickNode's flat history rate is genuinely better per call — $15.00/M against $18.00/M — but that 3-cent-per-thousand advantage does not repay a $10.50/M deficit everywhere else until history is 78% of your traffic. Dedicated indexers clear that bar. Very little else does.

Cost per million calls

Method Alchemy QuickNode
getAccountInfo, getBalance $4.50 $15.00
getMultipleAccounts, getSlot $9.00 $15.00
sendTransaction $9.00 $15.00
getProgramAccounts $9.00 $15.00
getBlock, getTransaction, getSignaturesForAddress $18.00 $15.00
DAS / Metaplex (getAsset*) not documented $30.00
Large scans (getLargestAccounts, getSupply) $4.50 $60.00

Alchemy bills compute units at $0.45/M — 10 CU for a plain account read, 20 for writes and getProgramAccounts, 40 for history. QuickNode bills credits at $0.50/M — a flat 30 credits for every standard Solana method including history, 60 for DAS, 120 for large scans.

Verified 2026-09-05 against Alchemy's Solana compute unit costs and quicknode.com/api-credits/solana.

These are pay-as-you-go and overage rates — the per-call price once an included quota is spent. A subscription's effective rate differs; see "Paid entry" below.

The large-scan row is the widest gap on this page: 13×. QuickNode's 4× multiplier on getLargestAccounts and getSupply meets Alchemy's decision not to weight them at all.

Where the crossover sits

Blending standard reads and history, with h as the history share:

Blended $/M
Alchemy $4.50 + $13.50 × h
QuickNode $15.00 flat

They meet at h = 77.8%.

History share Alchemy QuickNode Cheaper
0% $4.50 $15.00 Alchemy, 3.3×
25% $7.88 $15.00 Alchemy, 1.9×
50% $11.25 $15.00 Alchemy, 1.3×
78% $15.00 $15.00 —
100% $18.00 $15.00 QuickNode, 1.2×

Even at the far end the advantage is only 1.2×. This is the pairing where "which is cheaper for history?" and "which is cheaper for me?" have different answers, and the per-method table on its own will mislead you.

Free tier

Alchemy QuickNode
Allowance 30M CU/month 10M credits, once
In standard reads ~3M/month ~333k total
Rate limit 25 req/s 15 req/s
Renews Monthly No — it is a trial
Overage Pay-as-you-go Not sold on the trial

Not close. Alchemy gives roughly nine times the calls, renewing, at a higher rate limit. QuickNode's trial is for evaluating QuickNode, not for running on.

Alchemy is pay-as-you-go at $0.45/M CU with no minimum — the first call is billable and there is no floor. QuickNode Build is $49/month for 80M credits, which at 30 credits a call is about 2.7M standard calls, or roughly $18 per million.

The 80M credit figure is the one to be careful with. It sounds enormous next to Alchemy's per-CU pricing, but QuickNode spends 30 credits where Alchemy spends 10 CU, and a credit is worth about the same as a CU. Compare dollars per call.

Which to choose

Alchemy unless you have a specific reason not to. Cheaper across the board bar one method, larger free tier, no minimum spend.

QuickNode if you are running a dedicated indexer or ledger backfill where history really is the overwhelming majority of calls, or if you need DAS with published pricing — Alchemy documents no Solana DAS rate.

Both, if you run an indexer alongside an application:

[[providers]]
name    = "quicknode"
url     = "https://your-endpoint.solana-mainnet.quiknode.pro/${QUICKNODE_API_KEY}/"
methods = ["getBlock", "getTransaction", "getSignaturesForAddress", "getBlocks",
           "getAsset", "getAssetsByOwner", "searchAssets"]

[[providers]]
name = "alchemy"
url  = "https://solana-mainnet.g.alchemy.com/v2/${ALCHEMY_API_KEY}"

QuickNode takes the history and DAS calls; Alchemy takes everything else and covers QuickNode if it fails. See configuration and routing.

Setup: Alchemy · QuickNode · all seven providers compared