RedStone vs Tenderly

RedStone4.0/5

VS

Tenderly4.3/5

Feature	RedStoneVisit	TenderlyVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.0/5	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	4.0	5.0
Support	3.5	4.0
Specs
Services	Oracle	Developer tooling
Chains supported	110	50
Free tier	Not disclosed	Yes
Open source	Yes	Not disclosed
Token	RED	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2021	2018
Headquarters	—	United States
Investors	Arrington Capital, Lemniscap, Alchemy Capital, Amber Group +35	Spark Capital
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Supports more than 110 blockchains and 1,300 digital and real-world assets Secures $9.12B in value across 200+ integrated protocols as of October 2026 Completed 15 security audits from firms including Quantstamp, Halborn, and PeckShield Offers both transaction-attached pull feeds and standard push updates	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	Pull models require custom smart contract integration to unpack transaction payloads Tokenized real-world asset pricing relies heavily on off-chain issuer reporting intervals	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	Lending protocols using restaked collateral, Developers on high-throughput chains, Real-world asset tokenization platforms	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