Best RPC providers for sybil farmers in 2026

If you’re running more than a handful of wallets across multiple chains, your RPC provider is one of the first things that breaks. Free public endpoints rate-limit aggressively, shared providers fingerprint your request patterns, and cheap tiers cap you right when a farming window opens. I’ve gone through this frustration enough times that I started keeping notes on which providers actually hold up when you’re pushing volume.

This list is written for operators running structured multi-wallet campaigns, not casual airdrop participants who transact once a week. That means I’m prioritizing sustained request throughput, per-method rate limits, chain breadth, and cost-per-call at scale. If you’re farming five wallets, most of these picks are overkill. If you’re farming fifty or more across three or four chains simultaneously, the differences below matter a lot.

My testing covered Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum, Base, zkSync Era, Scroll, and a few newer EVM chains that launched airdrop programs in early 2026. I used both free tiers and paid tiers where budget allowed, and I supplemented with community reports from operators I trust. Pricing listed below reflects published rates as of May 2026 but changes frequently, so verify directly with each provider before committing.

how I picked

rate limits that hold under load: requests-per-second and daily compute unit caps matter more than headline latency when you’re batching transactions across wallets
chain coverage on emerging networks: new L2s and appchains are where most 2026 airdrop programs are running. a provider that only covers Ethereum mainnet and a few majors is basically useless
request isolation or privacy options: shared endpoints mean your wallet clusters can appear correlated at the infrastructure layer. some providers offer per-project keys or dedicated nodes that reduce this
cost predictability at scale: pay-as-you-go can spike badly during active farming windows. flat-rate plans or committed-use pricing is easier to budget against
archive node access: some protocols require historical state queries to verify eligibility or reconstruct positions. not everyone needs this but it’s a deciding factor when you do
support responsiveness: at $200/month+ you should be able to get a human to answer when a chain goes down mid-campaign

the picks

QuickNode

QuickNode is my default recommendation for operators who are serious about throughput. Their multi-chain coverage is the widest of any paid provider I’ve tested: as of early 2026 they support over 65 chains including all major EVM L2s, Solana, and most new appchains that matter for airdrops. The dashboard is clean, you get per-endpoint analytics, and add-ons like Streams (real-time data pipelines) are genuinely useful for monitoring wallet activity at scale.

Rate limits on paid plans are high enough that I’ve never hit a ceiling running 80+ wallets across three chains simultaneously. The free tier (10 million credits per month) is too small for real volume but fine for testing. The pricing model is tiered by credit consumption, which takes some time to internalize since different methods cost different credit weights, but their documentation is thorough on this. I’ve written a longer breakdown in my QuickNode review if you want the full picture.

pros: best-in-class chain coverage, high throughput on paid plans, per-endpoint keys for request isolation
pros: add-ons ecosystem for MEV, streaming, and NFT APIs if your strategy needs them
pros: detailed per-endpoint analytics help you spot bottlenecks early
cons: pricing gets expensive fast if you’re running archive calls at volume
cons: credit-weight system requires testing before you can predict monthly cost accurately

pricing: free tier at 10M credits/month. paid plans start around $49/month, scale to $299/month and custom enterprise. archive access available on higher tiers.

link: quicknode.com

dRPC

dRPC is the most interesting entry on this list from a privacy standpoint. It’s a decentralized RPC network where requests are routed through multiple independent node providers rather than a single corporate infrastructure. This makes it substantially harder to correlate wallet clusters at the infrastructure layer, which matters if you’re worried about providers analyzing request patterns. The multiaccountops.com blog has covered RPC fingerprinting risks in more depth if that threat model is new to you.

Performance is solid for standard calls on major chains. Chain coverage is growing but still behind QuickNode on the long tail of newer networks. The pay-per-use model is attractive for operators with variable workloads because you’re not locked into a monthly tier. Latency is generally acceptable for transaction broadcasting though it can be inconsistent compared to centralized providers since you’re dependent on the decentralized node pool quality.

pros: decentralized routing makes request correlation harder than with single-provider infrastructure
pros: pay-per-use pricing with no monthly minimums suits variable farming windows
pros: solid coverage of major EVM chains and growing network
cons: chain coverage on newer L2s and appchains lags behind QuickNode and Alchemy
cons: latency can be less predictable than centralized alternatives

pricing: pay-per-use, rates vary by chain and method. no minimum spend.

link: drpc.org

Alchemy

Alchemy is the standard choice for Ethereum-heavy stacks. Their infrastructure is battle-tested, latency on mainnet and the major EVM L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon) is consistently fast, and the enhanced APIs are genuinely useful if you’re doing anything beyond basic transaction broadcasting. The NFT API and Transfers API in particular save time when you’re tracking wallet history across large sets.

The free tier (300M compute units per month as of my last check) is more generous than most competitors and enough for light-to-medium volume. For serious airdrop farming, you’ll hit the ceiling on the free plan during active campaigns and need to upgrade. Archive node access is available on paid plans. My main complaint is that chain coverage on newer rollups and non-EVM chains is where Alchemy lags. If your target is a newer appchain or a Cosmos-based protocol, Alchemy probably doesn’t support it yet. See my Alchemy review for more detail on their API suite.

pros: most reliable provider for Ethereum mainnet and major EVM L2s, 5+ years of production track record
pros: generous free tier, enhanced APIs for NFT and transfer history queries
pros: excellent documentation and developer tooling
cons: chain coverage gaps on newer rollups and non-EVM protocols
cons: can get expensive for archive-heavy workloads on pay-as-you-go

pricing: free tier at 300M compute units/month. growth plan around $49/month. scale plan at $199/month. enterprise custom pricing.

link: alchemy.com

Ankr

Ankr is the budget pick. Their public RPC endpoints are free with no API key required, and their premium endpoints are among the cheapest paid options available. For operators who want to run high request volumes without spending $200+/month, Ankr is often the starting point. Chain coverage is broad, including many EVM chains and several non-EVM networks.

The trade-off is reliability and rate limits. Public endpoints are shared heavily and get throttled unpredictably. The premium tier is better but still not at the throughput ceiling of QuickNode or Alchemy’s paid plans. If you’re farming at high volume during peak network activity, Ankr can let you down at the worst time. I use it as a fallback endpoint in rotation rather than a primary, which keeps costs down while maintaining some redundancy.

pros: free public endpoints with no API key for basic use, cheapest premium tier of any major provider
pros: wide chain coverage including many smaller EVM networks
pros: useful as a low-cost fallback in endpoint rotation setups
cons: public endpoints throttle unpredictably under load, not suitable as primary for serious volume
cons: premium tier rate limits still lag behind QuickNode and Alchemy at equivalent price points

pricing: public endpoints free. premium from around $50/month for dedicated endpoints. enterprise custom.

link: ankr.com

Chainstack

Chainstack sits in the dedicated-node tier of this market. Rather than shared endpoint pools, Chainstack lets you spin up dedicated nodes that aren’t shared with other customers. This gives you full rate limits (no competing with other users for throughput), predictable performance, and cleaner request isolation. For operators running sustained high-volume operations where shared throughput is genuinely a bottleneck, dedicated nodes are worth the cost premium.

Setup takes a bit more work than plug-and-play providers. You provision a node, wait for it to sync, and manage it from there. The control is worth it at scale but it’s overhead that matters if you’re testing chains quickly or spinning up for short campaigns. Protocol support is strong across EVM chains and includes Solana. Archive node support is available. Pricing at the dedicated tier is significantly higher than shared providers.

pros: dedicated nodes eliminate shared-pool throughput contention, full rate limits per node
pros: strong archive node access, good for historical state queries
pros: solid chain coverage including major EVM L2s and Solana
cons: higher cost than shared providers, dedicated nodes are overkill for smaller operations
cons: more setup overhead, node provisioning and sync time adds friction for quick deployments

pricing: shared plans from $49/month. dedicated nodes from around $300-500/month depending on chain. enterprise custom.

link: chainstack.com

Blast API

Blast API (by Bware Labs) is a solid mid-tier option that doesn’t get enough attention. Their free tier is usable for testing across a reasonable number of chains, and their paid plans offer good throughput at competitive rates. Chain coverage includes most of the major EVM networks where airdrop programs concentrate, and they’ve been consistently adding new chains as rollup programs launch.

I’ve used Blast as a secondary provider when I want geographic redundancy without paying full dedicated-node prices. Their latency across European regions is particularly strong. For operators based in Southeast Asia, QuickNode’s edge network tends to beat Blast on latency, but the pricing can tip the balance. One thing I’d note is their documentation is occasionally behind their actual feature set, so it’s worth testing methods directly rather than assuming from docs alone.

pros: competitive pricing on paid tiers, good throughput for the cost
pros: solid European infrastructure, good latency for EU-based operators
pros: reasonable free tier for multi-chain testing
cons: documentation sometimes lags behind actual API capabilities
cons: chain coverage on newest appchains slower to update than QuickNode

pricing: free tier available. paid plans start around $29/month, scale from there. check current pricing on their site.

link: blastapi.io

Infura

Infura is the oldest name on this list and still worth including because of its reliability on Ethereum mainnet and the ConsenSys-supported chains. The Infura documentation is among the most complete of any provider, and the API behavior is well-understood in the community after years of use. If you’re running any operation that touches Ethereum mainnet heavily, Infura’s infrastructure is proven.

The reason it’s last on my list rather than higher: rate limits on free and lower paid tiers are genuinely restrictive for high-volume sybil farming, and the pricing for unlocking higher throughput is not competitive with QuickNode. Chain coverage has improved over the last two years but still focuses on the Ethereum ecosystem rather than the long tail of new chains where 2026 airdrop activity is concentrated. It’s not a bad provider, it’s just not optimized for the specific use case this list covers.

pros: extremely reliable infrastructure on Ethereum mainnet, battle-tested over many years
pros: comprehensive documentation, predictable API behavior
pros: good archive node access on paid plans
cons: rate limits on free and lower tiers are restrictive for volume operations
cons: chain coverage outside the Ethereum ecosystem is limited relative to QuickNode

pricing: free tier at 100K requests per day. paid plans from $50/month. core and developer tiers available.

link: infura.io

comparison table

provider	starting price	primary strength	primary weakness
QuickNode	$49/month	chain coverage + throughput	expensive for archive-heavy use
dRPC	pay-per-use	request privacy via decentralization	latency inconsistency
Alchemy	$49/month	Ethereum/EVM reliability	limited on newer chains
Ankr	free / $50/month	lowest cost entry point	public endpoints throttle unpredictably
Chainstack	$49/month shared, $300+ dedicated	dedicated nodes, no shared limits	cost and setup overhead
Blast API	~$29/month	cost-to-throughput ratio	doc lag, limited newest chains
Infura	$50/month	Ethereum mainnet reliability	rate limits, narrow chain scope

how to choose

The right pick depends on where your operations are concentrated and what throughput you actually need. If you’re farming primarily on Ethereum mainnet and the established L2s (Arbitrum, Base, Optimism), Alchemy and Infura are both solid and you can rotate between them for redundancy. If your campaigns are chasing new chain launches, which is where most of the interesting airdrop programs in 2026 are running, QuickNode’s chain coverage is genuinely ahead of the field and worth paying for.

Cost at scale is the variable most operators underestimate when starting out. A provider that looks cheap at low volume can become your largest operational expense as you scale wallets. Run the math on your expected daily call volume before committing to a plan. For most operators running under 100 wallets across three chains, a $49-99/month plan on QuickNode or Alchemy covers the volume. Beyond that, you should be pressure-testing pay-as-you-go tiers versus committed plans to find which model costs less for your actual usage pattern.

Request isolation is worth thinking about even if it’s not your top priority. Using separate API keys per wallet cluster is a basic step that all providers support. Going further, dedicated nodes (Chainstack) or decentralized routing (dRPC) add another layer of separation. The Ethereum JSON-RPC specification doesn’t include any wallet-identifying information at the protocol level, but at the application layer, providers can still analyze patterns across keys assigned to the same account. Separate accounts, separate billing, is the cleaner approach if isolation is a genuine concern.

Finally, don’t build around a single provider. Endpoint rotation across two providers gives you redundancy when one goes down, lets you route by chain (use the best provider per chain rather than the best overall), and gives you negotiating leverage if pricing changes. The overhead of maintaining two API integrations is low, and the operational resilience is worth it.

verdict / top pick

For most operators, QuickNode is the right default. Chain coverage is the widest in the field, paid tier throughput holds under real farming loads, and the per-endpoint analytics help you identify where your stack is spending time. It’s not the cheapest option and it’s overkill if you’re farming a handful of wallets, but for serious multi-wallet operations across multiple chains it’s the most capable all-around provider.

If cost is the binding constraint, start with Ankr’s free endpoints for testing and migrate to a Blast API paid plan when you need more reliable throughput. Use Alchemy as your Ethereum mainnet anchor if your stack is ETH-heavy. Add dRPC to the rotation if request privacy at the infrastructure layer is part of your threat model.

For a broader view of the tooling stack, the blog index has coverage on proxies, anti-detect browsers, and wallet management tools that pair with RPC selection. If you want to dig into individual provider setups, my dRPC review goes deeper on the decentralized routing model specifically.

Written by Xavier Fok

disclosure: this article may contain affiliate links. if you buy through them we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. verdicts are independent of payouts. last reviewed by Xavier Fok on 2026-05-19.