Indexing Co vs Goldsky
How Indexing Co's custom pipeline platform compares to Goldsky's managed subgraph hosting and Mirror streaming service.
Goldsky started as managed subgraph hosting, taking the operational pain out of running subgraphs yourself. They've since added Mirror, a data streaming product that pipes indexed data into your database. It's a step forward from raw subgraphs, but the underlying architecture carries the same limitations.
Architecture
Goldsky's core is hosted subgraph infrastructure with sub-second indexing latency. You deploy subgraphs to Goldsky instead of running them yourself. Mirror extends this by streaming onchain data (from subgraphs or direct indexing) directly into your database with sub-second latency, harmonizing data across chains, with SQL transforms and external HTTP handlers for custom logic. Goldsky's newer Turbo engine adds TypeScript/WASM transforms on top of this.
This means fast deploys, sub-second latency, and less operational overhead than self-hosted subgraphs. Mirror and Turbo add flexibility beyond raw subgraphs, but they remain separate engines layered on a subgraph-first, per-chain indexing model.
Indexing Co doesn't use subgraphs at all. You define pipelines that source events from any chain, transform them with TypeScript, and deliver directly to your infrastructure. The transformation layer is fully custom: you write the logic, not a subgraph mapping.
Feature Comparison
| Indexing Co | Goldsky | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Custom pipelines | Managed subgraphs + Mirror |
| Transform language | TypeScript | AssemblyScript (subgraphs); SQL + HTTP handlers (Mirror); TypeScript/WASM (Turbo) |
| Data destination | PostgreSQL, BigQuery, webhooks, GraphQL | Multiple database sinks, webhooks (via Mirror) |
| Multi-chain | Single pipeline definition | Per-chain indexing; Mirror harmonizes across chains |
| Block-to-database delivery | sub-500ms (dedicated infra) | Sub-second via Mirror; seconds via hosted GraphQL |
| Chains | 100+ | 150+ |
| VM support | EVM, Solana, Cosmos, Move | EVM + Solana, Starknet, Sui, others |
| Custom transforms | Full TypeScript control | Subgraph mappings or Mirror SQL/HTTP handlers |
| Schema changes | Hot-swap, no re-index | Re-index required |
| Pricing model | Pipeline-based | Subgraph + streaming based |
Key Differences
When to Use What
You have existing subgraphs and want managed hosting with sub-second latency, or Mirror's SQL transforms and streaming model fit your workflow.
You want a unified pipeline model with TypeScript transforms, single-definition multi-chain pipelines, or need to combine contract events with wallet/block/transaction data in one pipeline.
FAQ
Is Goldsky mainly the right choice for teams already invested in subgraphs?
Yes. Goldsky is strongest when your architecture is already subgraph-centric and you want managed hosting or companion streaming around that workflow.
What pushes teams toward Indexing Co instead?
Teams move when they want one pipeline model across chains, direct delivery to their own infrastructure, and a broader data scope than contract-event-first indexing.
Can Goldsky and Indexing Co coexist?
Yes. A team can keep legacy subgraphs on Goldsky while using Indexing Co for new pipelines that need custom transforms or direct database delivery.
Get Started
Explore This Cluster
DeFi data infrastructure links generated from the shared site graph.