BlockMachine vs Infura (MetaMask Developer) 2026: 2 live benchmarks compared

Name: BlockMachine vs Infura (MetaMask Developer) OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

OpenChainBench

BlockMachine vs Infura (MetaMask Developer)

Split decision: BlockMachine leads on Cheapest RPC provider, priced per workload across 19 providers ($25 vs $225); Infura (MetaMask Developer) leads on Most requests a free RPC plan buys, across 13 providers (902.3K vs 10.0K). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 24 Oct 2026 20:02:47 UTCWindow: rolling 24h2 shared benchmarks

BlockMachine

RPC gateway built on Bittensor Subnet 19: independent node operators compete to serve each request and a validator layer checks responses against reference nodes. Eleven chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Optimism, Polygon, Scroll, Mantle, Arc, Robinhood Chain, Bittensor), one Request Unit budget shared across them, and only successful responses are billed.

Infura (MetaMask Developer)

RPC infrastructure by Consensys, now part of the MetaMask Developer platform. Keyed endpoints across 40+ networks; free tier meters 3M credits per day.

Side by side measurements

Cheapest RPC provider, priced per workload across 19 providers

RPCs

Provider	Monthly cost, dapp mix at 10M requests	Effective cost per 1M requests	Billing units per request	Free tier, requests per month
BlockMachineprovisional	$25	$2.50	1	10.0K
Infura (MetaMask Developer)provisional	$225	$22.50	100	902.3K

View

BlockMachinen/aInfura (MetaMask Developer)n/a

Published prices, not invoices. Each figure is human-verified against the provider's own pricing page or API and carries the date it was read; the harness re-hashes 25 of those artifacts on a loop to catch an upstream edit. A 30-day month and flat traffic are assumed, the most generous reading. NOWNodes prices in EUR. A provider absent from a cell is not missing data: it has no plan that can serve that workload, usually a cap or a throughput ceiling rather than the price.

Most requests a free RPC plan buys, across 13 providers

RPCs

BlockMachine

Trails

10.0K

rank: #11

Infura (MetaMask Developer)

Leads

902.3K

rank: #8

Free allowance

BlockMachinen/aInfura (MetaMask Developer)n/a

Allowance, not latency and not reliability. A plan that buys the most requests is not thereby the fastest or the most correct; those are measured on the per-chain RPC pages. Published allowances, human-verified against each provider's own pricing page with the date it was read. A free plan is one that costs nothing and renews, so QuickNode's one-month trial is not here. Where a provider publishes a daily cap it is multiplied by 30.

Frequently asked questions

BlockMachine vs Infura (MetaMask Developer): which one is better?

BlockMachine and Infura (MetaMask Developer) are compared on 2 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. BlockMachine leads on Cheapest RPC provider, priced per workload across 19 providers. Infura (MetaMask Developer) leads on Most requests a free RPC plan buys, across 13 providers. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, BlockMachine or Infura (MetaMask Developer)?

On the Cheapest RPC provider, priced per workload across 19 providers benchmark, BlockMachine leads at $25 (provisional) versus Infura (MetaMask Developer) at $225 (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

Which has the higher free allowance, BlockMachine or Infura (MetaMask Developer)?

On the Most requests a free RPC plan buys, across 13 providers benchmark, Infura (MetaMask Developer) leads at 902.3K versus BlockMachine at 10.0K. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the BlockMachine vs Infura (MetaMask Developer) comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing; panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.