Are you experiencing unexpected $50k-$100k monthly bills from Birdeye.so? You’re not alone.
Many developers start with Birdeye.so thinking they’ll pay a reasonable monthly fee perhaps $199 for the Premium tier or $699 for Business. They set up their streaming infrastructure, connect their WebSocket feeds, and begin monitoring blockchain data. Then the first bill arrives: $10,000. The next month: $25,000. By month three, some developers are looking at $100,000+ monthly charges.
If you’re searching for a Birdeye alternative, you’ve likely encountered their compute unit (CU) pricing model. Here’s the critical problem: Birdeye charges compute units for every stream, every WebSocket connection, and every API call, even for streaming data, costs scale directly with data volume.
Table of Contents
Real-World Impact: The $100k Monthly Bill Problem
Here’s what happens when developers try to use Birdeye.so for real-time streaming:
Scenario: You need to stream blockchain data for a trading application or wallet monitoring system.
- Initial expectation: “I’ll pay $199/month for Premium tier with 15M compute units included”
- Reality: Active streaming of blockchain events (trades, transfers, new blocks) can easily consume 1-2 million compute units per month
Cost calculation for Premium tier
- Base: $199/month
- Additional CUs: 1,000,000 × $9.9 per 1M CUs = $9,900
- Total: ~$10,099/month
For production applications with multiple streams:
– Monitoring 100 wallets: $20k-$50k/month
– High-frequency trading data: $50k-$100k+/month
– Multiple WebSocket connections: Costs multiply per connection
This is why developers are actively searching for Birdeye alternatives.
Why This Model Breaks for Streaming
- Blockchain data is inherently high-volume: Every block contains multiple transactions, and each transaction can trigger multiple events
- Real-time requirements: Applications need continuous streams, not occasional API calls
- Multiple data sources: Most applications need to monitor multiple addresses, tokens, or pools simultaneously
- No predictability: Costs are difficult to estimate upfront because they depend on on-chain activity, which varies significantly
The compute unit model fundamentally misunderstands how streaming applications work. When you’re building production systems that need real-time blockchain data, you can’t predict how much data will flow through your streams.
This is why so many developers find themselves trapped: they’ve built their infrastructure on Birdeye.so, only to discover that scaling their application means scaling their costs exponentially. The compute unit model penalizes success, the more your application grows, the more expensive it becomes.
The Solution: Bitquery’s Unlimited Streaming Model
If you’re reading this, you’re likely searching for a Birdeye.so alternative that doesn’t punish you for streaming data. The good news? There is a better way.
Bitquery offers unlimited blockchain data streaming with no compute unit charges, plus a flexible points-based API system that only charges for what you actually use. Unlike Birdeye.so’s model where costs scale with data volume, Bitquery’s approach is designed for production applications that need to scale.
Here’s what makes Bitquery the best Birdeye.so alternative:
Bitquery: The Best Birdeye.so Alternative for Unlimited Streaming
Bitquery is the leading Birdeye.so alternative that solves the compute unit problem with a fundamentally different pricing model designed for production applications.
Bitquery Pricing: Pay Only for What You Use
- Unlimited streaming data – No compute unit charges
- Unlimited active streams – No per-stream fees
- No throttling – Scalable API calls
- 24/7 access to engineering team
- Priority support via Slack and Telegram
- Multiple data interfaces: SQL, Cloud, Kafka, WebSocket, GraphQL
- Dedicated onboarding & custom SLA
Why Bitquery Is the Best Birdeye.so Alternative
1. Unlimited Streaming Data – No Compute Units
Unlike Birdeye.so, Bitquery offers unlimited blockchain data streaming with no compute unit charges:
- No data volume limits on Kafka streams and WebSocket subscriptions
- No per-message charges – Stream as much as you need
- Unlimited active streams – Monitor hundreds of wallets simultaneously
- Predictable costs – Your streaming costs don’t explode with data volume
Key benefit: With Bitquery, you can stream millions of blockchain events without worrying about compute units consuming your budget. What’s more, you can stream custom data like real-time balance and Uniswap slippage with no limits.
2. Flexible Points-Based API (Not Compute Units)
For GraphQL queries and REST API calls, Bitquery uses a points-based system that’s more flexible and cost-effective than compute units:
Advantages over Birdeye’s compute units:
– Query optimization matters: Well-structured queries consume fewer points
– Transparent pricing: See exactly how many points each query consumes
– Pay for complexity, not volume: Simple queries cost fewer points
– No hidden charges: Clear, predictable pricing
How points work: Points are allocated based on query complexity, not just raw data volume. This means you can optimize your queries to reduce costs, something impossible with Birdeye’s compute unit model.
3. Real-World Cost Comparison: Birdeye.so vs Bitquery
Let’s compare actual costs for common use cases:
Scenario 1: Monitor 100 Solana Wallets for Real-Time Transfers
Birdeye.so (Premium tier – $199/month):
- Base: $199/month
- Streaming 100 wallets with high activity: ~2M compute units
- Additional cost: 2M × $9.9 = $19,800
- Total: ~$19,999/month
Bitquery (Commercial Plan):
- Streaming: Unlimited data, no compute unit charges
- API queries: Points-based (optimized queries = lower costs)
- Total: Predictable custom pricing
Side-by-Side Comparison: Birdeye.so vs Bitquery
| Feature | Birdeye.so | Bitquery (Best Alternative) |
|---|---|---|
| Streaming Pricing Model | Compute units (scales with data) | Unlimited streaming (no data limits) |
| Cost for 1M data points | $9.9-$23 per 1M CUs | Included in plan (no per-message charge) |
| Multiple Streams | Each stream charges CUs based on usage | Each streams charged irrespective of amount of data |
| API Pricing | Compute units | Points-based (optimizable) |
| Predictable Costs | Unpredictable (scales with data) | Predictable (custom pricing) |
| Free Trial | Limited (30k CUs) | 10k points + 2 streams |
| Production Ready | Expensive at scale | Built for scale |
| Support | Varies by plan | 24/7 engineering team access |
Verdict: Bitquery is the clear winner for any application requiring real-time streaming or production-scale usage.
When to Choose Birdeye.so vs Bitquery
Choose Birdeye Only If:
- You need occasional API calls with very low data volume
- Your use case fits strictly within the included compute units
- You don’t require continuous streaming or real-time data
- Budget is very limited and usage is minimal (< 100k compute units/month)
Choose Bitquery (Recommended) If:
- You need real-time streaming of blockchain data
- You’re building production applications that require continuous data feeds
- You need to monitor multiple addresses, tokens, or pools simultaneously
- You want predictable costs that don’t explode with data volume
- You’re building scalable applications that need to grow
- You need unlimited streaming without compute unit charges
- You want 24/7 engineering support and dedicated onboarding
Bottom line: For 95% of production applications, Bitquery is the better choice due to unlimited streaming and predictable pricing.
The information on this page is provided “as is” for general informational and marketing purposes and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. We make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, or currentness of any third-party pricing, compute unit models, plan features, usage limits, service levels, or billing outcomes. Third-party terms and pricing may change without notice and may vary by customer contract, region, and usage characteristics.
All billing amounts, usage metrics (including compute units), and scenarios are hypothetical or illustrative and are not guarantees, forecasts, or quotes. Your actual costs may differ materially. You are solely responsible for evaluating and confirming pricing and suitability with each provider.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all liability for any losses or damages arising from reliance on this information.
