🏗️ Storage Solutions: Compare Options
Explore IPFS, Arweave, Filecoin, and on-chain storage trade-offs
Compare IPFS, Arweave, and on-chain storage
Your Progress
0 / 5 completed💾 Comparing Storage Solutions
Beyond IPFS, several decentralized storage protocols compete for NFT storage. Each has different trade-offs in cost, permanence, speed, and complexity. Let's compare the three most popular options: IPFS with pinning services, Arweave's permanent storage, and Filecoin's marketplace-based approach.
📊 Interactive: Cost & Feature Calculator
Adjust file size to see estimated costs and compare features across different storage solutions.
IPFS + Pinning
10 MB storage analysis
- •Affordable ($5-20/mo for most collections)
- •Fast retrieval via P2P network
- •Industry standard (OpenSea, Rarible)
- •Content-addressed and verifiable
- •Redundant across many nodes
- •Requires active pinning service
- •Not truly permanent without payment
- •Pinning service could shut down
- •Need to trust pinning provider
📋 Quick Comparison Table
| Feature | IPFS | Arweave | Filecoin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost (10MB/mo) | $5 | $50 once | $1 |
| Permanence | Pinning | 200+ yrs | Deal-based |
| Retrieval Speed | Fast | Medium | Slow |
| Recurring Fees | Yes | No | Yes |
| Setup Complexity | Easy | Medium | Hard |
| Content Addressing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
🏆 Winner by Use Case
🌟 Hybrid Approaches
💡 Key Insight
There's no one-size-fits-all solution. IPFS dominates because it's the best trade-off for most projects: affordable, fast, and well-supported. Arweave is growing for high-value NFTs where one-time payment for true permanence makes sense ($500 for a $100K NFT is negligible). Filecoin is best for archival use cases where retrieval speed isn't critical. The smartest projects use hybrid approaches—IPFS for speed, Arweave for permanence guarantees, and multiple pinning services for redundancy.