Compare
Polygon RPC pricing compared: requests, RPS, traces, credits, and compute units
Most pricing pages mix monthly quota, RPS, credits, compute units, traces, and overages. This guide normalizes the parts that actually matter for Polygon builders.
Last updated: July 8, 2026. Pricing last checked: July 8, 2026.
Disclosure: BlazingNode is a Polygon RPC provider. Pricing and feature details can change. Verify current provider pages before making a final buying decision.
Who this page is for
- Buyers comparing Polygon RPC providers
- Teams confused by RPS vs monthly volume
- Users comparing Chainstack, Alchemy, QuickNode, dRPC, Ankr, and BlazingNode
- Operators dealing with trace cost, rate limits, or quota pressure
Quick diagnosis
- RPS is peak rate, not monthly runway.
- Monthly requests tell you how long a workload actually fits.
- Trace and debug methods can change cost dramatically.
- Credits, RUs, and CUs are not equivalent to direct requests.
The mistake: comparing RPS without monthly volume
A plan can advertise high RPS but still include a much smaller monthly quota than a sustained workload needs. Thirty RPS sustained for a 30-day month is about 77.76M requests.
The second mistake: treating every provider unit as one request
BlazingNode uses direct monthly request limits. Chainstack uses request units. Alchemy uses compute units. QuickNode uses credits. dRPC uses flat 20 CU per method. Ankr uses API credits and per-request pricing.
| Provider | Public pricing model | Example serious tier | RPS / throughput | Trace / debug | Main pricing risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BlazingNode | Direct monthly request limits | Operator 99 USDC: 30 RPS, 40M requests, 50K included traces | Clear RPS caps by plan | Included monthly trace volume on paid plans | Polygon-only focus instead of broad multi-chain coverage |
| Chainstack | Request Units (RUs) | Growth $49: 20M RUs, 250 RPS; Pro $199: 80M RUs, 400 RPS | High published RPS, RU-based monthly envelope | Trace/debug methods billed at 2 RUs | Lower-looking plans can be less generous once archive/trace usage appears |
| Alchemy | Compute Units (CUs) | Free 30M CU, 25 RPS; PAYG from 300 RPS | CUPS/CU model rather than direct request count | Debug/Trace on PAYG or Enterprise, not Free | Method mix changes forecasting difficulty |
| QuickNode | API credits | Build $49: 80M credits, 50 RPS; Accelerate $249: 450M credits, 125 RPS | Credit-weighted throughput | Credit math depends on method and plan mix | Credit weighting is harder to reason about than direct request plans |
| dRPC | Compute Units | $0.30 per 1M CUs; flat 20 CU per RPC method | Usage-based with flat per-method CU math | Still usage-based, but method weighting is clearer | Still requires monthly usage calculation instead of fixed request envelopes |
| Ankr | API credits / per-request pricing | EVM HTTPS calls: 200 credits / $0.00002 per request | Per-call pricing model | Depends on method and product mix | Per-request math can become expensive at sustained HTTP volume |
Example: 30 RPS sustained
Thirty RPS sustained is about 77.76M requests per month. BlazingNode Pro sits at 80M monthly requests for 179 USDC. Chainstack Pro sits at 80M request units for $199. Alchemy and QuickNode require method-mix modeling because CUs and credits are not one-to-one with direct request counts. dRPC is clearer than many usage-based models because it uses flat 20 CU per method.
Where BlazingNode is not trying to compete
BlazingNode is not trying to be a broad 100-chain platform or a full developer suite. It is for teams who want Polygon-focused request clarity, included traces, USDC billing, and simpler monthly planning.
Which pricing model fits you?
| Multi-chain app | A broad platform may fit better. |
| Need direct Polygon volume and trace clarity | BlazingNode is built for this. |
| Need the cheapest-looking 20M general plan | Chainstack Growth is a serious option. |
| Need advanced developer platform APIs | Alchemy or QuickNode may fit better. |
| Need flat method CU math | dRPC may be easier to forecast. |