Top 7 Blockchain Node Providers You Should Know in 2025
In the rapidly evolving world of Web3 and blockchain technology, one of the most critical infrastructure layers is the node provider. Companies and protocols that offer reliable access to blockchain nodes and RPC (Remote Procedure Call) endpoints enable developers, applications and enterprises to build and scale decentralized apps (dApps) without having to run and maintain full infrastructure themselves.
At the same time, node providers vary significantly in features, supported chains, performance, decentralisation, cost, and target‑users. Understanding the differences is key to making a good choice. This article explores seven leading blockchain node providers (including HeLa Guardian Node) — what each brings to the table, how they compare, and what to look for when selecting one.
What is a Blockchain Node Provider
A blockchain node provider is an entity (company, protocol, or service) that offers access to blockchain network nodes — servers or endpoints that replicate blockchain data, validate transactions, respond to RPC calls, and sometimes support archive data, web‑hooks, indexing, or related infrastructure.
Rather than each developer or app operator running their own full node (which may involve large hardware, bandwidth, storage, and maintenance burdens), they can plug into a node provider’s infrastructure and use APIs, RPC endpoints or managed nodes. This abstracts away much of the complexity and lets developers focus on building rather than infrastructure.
Node providers differ in whether they use centralised architecture, decentralised node networks, how many chains they support, whether they provide archive/full vs light nodes, what SLA/uptime they promise, what analytics and tooling they include, and how their pricing is structured. Selecting a provider involves trade‑offs among cost, performance, decentralisation, and support.
Top 7 Blockchain Node Providers
Below are seven notable node providers, each with a small summary (mini‑description) followed by more detailed description.
1. HeLa Guardian Node
HeLa Guardian Node is a next-generation blockchain infrastructure provider specifically designed for the Hela blockchain ecosystem. It offers high-performance, decentralized, and secure node services, ensuring seamless interactions between decentralized applications (dApps) and the Hela blockchain.
With a focus on scalability, security, and efficiency, HeLa Guardian Node is built to support both developers and enterprises looking to integrate with Web3. The infrastructure is designed for low-latency transactions, optimized RPC access, and automated node scaling. Additionally, HeLa Guardian Node provides multi-chain compatibility, making it a powerful solution for developers working across multiple blockchain environments.
Why it stands out: Because it’s built for a specific chain (HeLa) and integrates governance and decentralised node functions, it offers a niche value proposition, especially if you’re building on HeLa or participating in its ecosystem.
Considerations: As with many emerging providers, adoption may be smaller compared to legacy providers, chain‑support may be limited outside the HeLa Network for now.
Key features:
- Guardian Nodes help with resilience, decentralisation and node‑health monitoring.
- Possibly attractive yield/incentive for node runners or participants (for example staking of HLA tokens).
- Designed for DeFi, DApps, DePIN, AI integration within HeLa ecosystem.
2. Ankr
Ankr has positioned itself as a leading Web3 infrastructure company, offering a globally distributed network of blockchain nodes. Its “Web3 API” product delivers low‑latency RPC endpoints. It supports over 70 blockchains, and offers additional services like staking, side‑chain/rollup creation as a service, and enterprise solutions.
Why it stands out: Multi‑chain support, global distribution (reducing latency globally), and wide ecosystem adoption. Good for projects that need broad chain coverage and scale.
Considerations: Though large, being a large infrastructure provider means you need to evaluate your SLA, decentralisation (some commentary notes that decentralisation is still partial) and cost model.
Key features:
- Multi‑chain (70+).
- Global node network.
- Supports staking, side‑chain/rollup infrastructure.
Also read: Top 7 Blockchain Explorers You Should Know in 2025
3. Alchemy
Alchemy is widely recognised in the Web3 developer community. It is one of the top node providers based on reliability, tooling and enterprise readiness. Alchemy offers a suite of developer tools (APIs, SDKs, analytics, monitoring) in addition to basic node access. For instance, the pricing model uses “compute units” rather than mere request counts, reflecting the complexity of calls.
Why it stands out: Its focus on developer experience, strong support, and high performance make it ideal for complex dApps, production deployments and projects that may require rich tooling beyond basic RPC.
Considerations: It might cost more than simpler node services, especially when high throughput or complex usage is required.
Key features:
- Strong developer tooling (SDKs, dashboards).
- Enterprise‑grade support and reliability.
- Support for many chains and archive/full node access.
4. Infura
Infura provides a suite of high‑availability blockchain APIs and node access, particularly for Ethereum and IPFS. Because of its early dominance, many dApps, wallets and services have relied on Infura infrastructure.
Why it stands out: Brand recognition, reliability, large ecosystem integration, and a proven track record for mainstream applications.
Considerations: Some critiques focus on centralisation risk and constraints on certain free tiers. Also, may be less agile for some newer chains compared to specialised multi‑chain providers.
Key features:
- Strong reliability and uptime.
- Wide ecosystem usage.
- Good choice for Ethereum‑centric projects.
5. QuickNode
QuickNode markets itself as offering “unmatched speed, high performance, scalability, and an extensive suite of developer tools.” A benchmark test indicated global average response times: QuickNode ~86 ms, Ankr ~164 ms, Alchemy ~207 ms for certain networks. This suggests QuickNode has a performance edge for latency‑sensitive applications.
Why it stands out: For projects where low latency and global performance matter, QuickNode is appealing.
Considerations: As with any provider, you’ll need to examine cost, SLA, geographical coverage aligned with your user base, and chain coverage.
Key features:
- Low latency endpoint network.
- Broad chain support.
- Developer‑friendly setup.
6. Chainstack
Chainstack provides infrastructure solutions to Web3 application developers—ranging from nodes to hosting solutions. It supports Ethereum, Polygon, BNB Smart Chain, Avalanche, Fantom, Solana, Harmony, StarkNet, Tezos, Fabric, Corda, Bitcoin and MultiChain. Chainstack’s flat‑fee pricing and enterprise‑oriented features may appeal to larger‑scale teams.
Why it stands out: Good balance of developer and enterprise features, multi‑chain support, and hosting options including dedicated nodes, archive data etc.
Considerations: For very high throughput or extremely latency‑sensitive projects, you’ll want to compare performance vs more specialised providers. Cost structure may differ.
Key features:
- Dedicated nodes option.
- Support for many chains (including non‑EVM networks).
- Enterprise‑oriented features (monitoring, trace APIs, etc).
7. Blockdaemon
Blockdaemon is featured in lists of top node providers for its broad chain support and marketplace model. For teams or enterprises wanting multi‑chain or staking infrastructure (including validator/validator‑node operations) this may matter.
Why it stands out: Institutional and enterprise focus, large chain‑coverage, node‑operator marketplace means more flexibility in terms of node placement, configuration, etc.
Considerations: Might be more complex or costly for smaller dev teams; you’ll want to consider node‑type (full, archive, validator) and cost/benefit carefully.
Key features:
- Support for 50+ chains.
- Institutional and enterprise grade infrastructure.
- Node operator marketplace model.
Table Comparison
Below is a comparative table of the seven providers across key criteria: chain support breadth, focus, performance, decentralisation, and pricing model. This table helps evaluate each provider at a glance.
| Provider | Chain Support | Focus | Performance | Decentralisation | Pricing Model |
| HeLa Guardian Node | HeLa only (expanding) | Ecosystem/Validator | High (HeLa specific) | Decentralised Guardian model | Token-based/Staking |
| Ankr | 70+ chains | Dev + Enterprise | Low latency | Partially decentralised | Usage-based |
| Alchemy | Multi-chain (EVM) | Dev + Enterprise | High | Centralised | Compute unit-based |
| Infura | Ethereum/IPFS | Developer | High reliability | Centralised | Tiered (limited free) |
| QuickNode | 70+ chains | Developer | Very low latency | Centralised | Subscription-based |
| Chainstack | Broad incl. non-EVM | Dev + Enterprise | Stable/Scalable | Hybrid model | Flat fee + usage |
| Blockdaemon | 50+ chains | Enterprise | Scalable | Node marketplace model | Enterprise contracts |
This table summarizes the most relevant decision points when choosing a node provider. If your priority is decentralisation, HeLa Guardian Node or Blockdaemon might be ideal. For performance, QuickNode stands out, while for cost transparency, Chainstack offers a flat-rate model.
What to Look For
When evaluating a node provider, you should consider multiple dimensions beyond just “cheap RPC access”. Below are several key criteria (each description spans two paragraphs):
1. Chain‑support and ecosystem fit
First, check which blockchain networks the provider supports. If your project is solely on one chain (e.g., Ethereum), then a provider strong on that chain might suffice. If you plan multi‑chain, side‑chains, L2s, or future expansion, you’ll favour providers with broad chain support (like Ankr, Chainstack).
Secondly, look at how deep the support is — full node vs light node vs archive, whether the provider supports testnets, sidechains, new emerging networks, and whether they keep pace with ecosystem growth. A provider whose chain list is stagnant may become a bottleneck.
2. Performance, latency & global coverage
Performance matters especially if you serve users globally, have high throughput needs (many RPC calls per second), or your application is latency‑sensitive (e.g., trading, gaming, real‑time analytics). Compare average response times, availability of geo‑distributed endpoints, backbone infrastructure, and whether they provide dedicated nodes or shared pool. For example, QuickNode’s benchmarking shows strong performance in response time.
Also consider availability and SLA — downtime or throttling can severely impact your dApp credibility. Look for uptime guarantees, monitoring tools, logs, and failover options. A node provider with global data centres will have an advantage in latency to users in APAC region (which is relevant for you in the Philippines).
3. Decentralisation & resilience
One of the ethos of Web3 is decentralisation — relying on a single provider may introduce centralised failure points or censorship risk. Some node providers are essentially large centralised services (e.g., many apps use the same provider). Others offer decentralised networks of nodes (e.g., node operators all over the world) which can reduce risk of central failure. In commentary, Ankr’s decentralisation was noted as partial since it still uses a centralized load‑balancer.
If your project requires strong decentralisation (for regulatory reasons, for trustless architecture, or for censorship resistance), choose a provider that emphasises distributed node operators, multiple endpoints, redundancy, and avoids being a single point of failure. Node operator marketplaces or providers that let you deploy your own nodes are stronger in this respect.
4. Tooling, analytics and support
Node access alone may not be enough — good providers give developer tools: dashboards showing usage, alerts on rate limits, tracing and debug APIs, archive node access, web‑hooks for events, SDKs, logs, and team collaboration features. For production apps, enterprise‑grade support, SLAs, custom nodes or dedicated clusters may matter. Alchemy, for example, emphasises rich tooling and analytics.
If you foresee your application growing beyond a hobby prototype, the time you save with good tooling and support can justify extra cost. Also pay attention to how the provider handles growth spikes, scaling, billing clarity and how easy it is to switch or upgrade if needed.
5. Pricing and cost predictability
Cost matters especially for budget‑sensitive teams or when you scale. Look at the pricing model: is it free‑tier friendly? Pay‑as‑you‑go? Flat fee? Are there hidden costs for archival requests or high throughput? Compare cost per request or per “compute unit”. For example, Alchemy uses compute units rather than simple request count.
Also consider cost predictability: if your app usage spikes, will you incur large bills? Does the provider offer alerting? Do they have transparent pricing tiers? Some flat‑fee models (e.g., Chainstack) may give more cost stability. Evaluate cost vs features vs risk of being locked in.
6. Future‑proofing & flexibility
Finally, consider how the provider keeps up with blockchain innovation: are they quick to support new chains, L2s, side‑chains, layer‑1 forks, updates? Are they prepared for scale and changes (e.g., new consensus protocols, high‑TPS chains)? Providers that focus solely on one chain may struggle if you expand. Ankr, for example, emphasises “Supernets as a service” and sidechain infrastructure.
Also check ease of migrating: if you later need to move to a different provider, what is the cost, how difficult is it to switch? Does the provider provide dedicated nodes you own, or is it fully managed (which might be harder to pull away)? Flexibility and exit options matter.
Also read: What is Polymarket? A Beginner’s Guide to Crypto Betting and Forecasting
Conclusion
Choosing a blockchain node provider is a strategic decision that impacts your application’s scalability, reliability, and long-term sustainability. Whether you’re a solo developer launching an MVP or an enterprise deploying a large-scale Web3 platform, having the right node partner can save both time and infrastructure costs.
From decentralised models like HeLa Guardian Node and Blockdaemon to full-service tools like Alchemy and QuickNode, there’s a broad range of solutions depending on your technical and operational needs. Evaluate each based on your chain compatibility, desired decentralisation, budget, performance requirements, and future goals.
I'm Kris, a fintech writer with three years of experience. I've been on a mission to simplify the intricacies of trading through my words, bridging the gap between technology and finance. Join me on this journey as I empower traders and investors with clear, engaging content in the dynamic world of fintech.