Covalent vs Tenderly

Covalent4.1/5

VS

Tenderly4.3/5

Feature	CovalentVisit	TenderlyVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.1/5	4.3/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Reliability	4.5	4.5
Chain coverage	5.0	4.5
Pricing	3.0	3.5
Developer experience	4.5	5.0
Support	3.5	4.0
Specs
Services	Indexing, Data APIs, Developer tooling	Developer tooling
Chains supported	100	50
Free tier	Not disclosed	Yes
Enterprise SLA	Yes	Not disclosed
Open source	Yes	Not disclosed
Token	CXT	Not disclosed
Uptime SLA	99.99%	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2018	2018
Headquarters	Canada	United States
Investors	1kx, Coinbase Ventures, Delphi Digital, YZi Labs	Spark Capital
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Standardized data schema across more than 100 supported blockchains Under 200ms API response latency with historical data from genesis Dual auditing history with evaluations from Quantstamp, Sherlock, and Hacken Native token CXT is over 89% circulating with 278M+ tokens staked	Supports transaction simulation and debugging across 50+ EVM chains Provides Virtual TestNets synced directly with real-time on-chain state Raised $58.6M in funding from institutional backers including Spark Capital Offers a free tier for essential debugging and simulation tasks
Cons	Network security relies on a small set of 23 active operators Past native token migration required swapping CQT to CXT Hosted API endpoints introduce centralized external infrastructure dependencies	Node RPC access requires a paid subscription plan Centralized monitoring infrastructure creates operational vendor dependency Focused exclusively on EVM networks without non-EVM support
Best for	Multichain wallet developers, Onchain analytics and tax platforms, Autonomous AI agent builders	Smart contract protocol developers, DeFi risk engineering teams, Institutions managing multisig governance

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.

More comparisons