IPFS Pinning Services Compared: Pinata, Filebase, Infura and Lighthouse

Short version: pick Pinata for the largest ecosystem of integrations, Filebase if you want S3 semantics over multiple decentralized backends, Infura if you are already deep in their stack, and Lighthouse if the data needs to be encrypted and access-controlled on-chain.
Every one of these will pin a file and give you a gateway URL. They differ on what happens around that — durability underneath, privacy, access control, and how much of your architecture you have to change.
We build one of them, so read the comparison with that in mind. We have tried to be specific enough about where we lose that you can check.
At a glance
| | Pinata | Filebase | Infura | Lighthouse | |---|---|---|---|---| | IPFS pinning | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Dedicated gateways | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | S3-compatible API | No | Yes | No | Yes, via L3 | | Durability layer | Pinning | Multiple backends | Pinning | Filecoin deals or Walrus | | Client-side encryption | No | No | No | Yes, threshold | | On-chain access conditions | No | No | No | Yes | | Multi-network routing | IPFS | IPFS, Sia, others | IPFS | IPFS, Filecoin, Walrus | | Agent-oriented tooling | No | No | No | Memory, MCP | | Free tier | Yes | Yes | Yes | 5 GB |
Pinata
The most widely integrated IPFS service, and for a lot of teams the default. Mature dashboard, good docs, submarining for private-ish files, extensive NFT tooling, and an enormous number of tutorials that assume it.
Choose it when you want the path of least resistance for IPFS pinning, particularly around NFT workflows, and you do not need cryptographic privacy.
Where it does not fit is confidentiality. Private files are private by policy — the service holds your plaintext and agrees not to serve it to others. That is a reasonable product decision, and it is a different guarantee from data the operator structurally cannot read.
Filebase
S3-compatible object storage over decentralized backends, with IPFS among them. If your codebase already speaks S3, Filebase is the smallest possible diff: change the endpoint, keep the bucket-and-key mental model.
Choose it when you want to move existing S3 workloads onto decentralized storage with minimal code change and no interest in the underlying network specifics.
Where we overlap directly is L3, our own S3-compatible endpoint. Honest read: if S3 compatibility over IPFS is the only requirement, these are close, and Filebase has been at it longer. Our differentiation is what sits alongside it — encryption, on-chain conditions, and the agent surface — not the S3 layer in isolation.
Infura
IPFS as one component of a broader Web3 developer platform, alongside RPC endpoints for several chains. Consolidation is the value: one vendor, one bill, one dashboard.
Choose it when you are already using Infura for node access and want storage in the same place with the same credentials.
Where it does not fit is teams for whom storage is the primary concern rather than an accessory. A storage module inside a larger platform tends to get platform-level attention, not storage-level attention.
Lighthouse
We are storage-first, and the thing we build that the others do not is client-side threshold encryption with on-chain access control.
Files are encrypted in the browser or runtime before upload. The key is split with BLS threshold cryptography across independent nodes, so no single node holds a complete key. Reconstruction requires a threshold of nodes to each independently verify that the requester satisfies conditions you defined — token balances, NFT ownership, custom contract return values, time windows, passkeys, zkTLS proofs — before releasing their share.
The consequence is structural rather than contractual: we cannot read your files, and neither can storage node operators on IPFS, Filecoin or Walrus. Compromising our infrastructure does not expose contents, because there is no plaintext and no complete key to take.
Underneath the pin you choose a durability layer: Filecoin deals for archival volume, or Walrus for erasure-coded blob storage with faster reads. Same CIDs, same SDK calls, and migration between them preserves identifiers.
Choose it when the data is sensitive, gated, regulated, or shared per-recipient — or when you are building for agents and want memory and MCP tooling alongside storage.
Where you should not choose us: if you want the cheapest possible raw pinning with no encryption and no access control, a commodity pinning service will be cheaper and simpler. We do not compete on cost per gigabyte, and pretending otherwise would waste your time.
The question that actually decides it
Not "which is fastest" or "which is cheapest per GB" — at these volumes those differences are small and change quarterly.
Ask instead: does anyone other than the intended reader ever hold this file in plaintext?
If the honest answer is "it does not matter, this is public content," then any of these will do, and you should optimise for integration effort and price. Most NFT media, static assets and published datasets are in this category.
If the answer is "that would be a problem," then encryption is not a feature to add later. It has to happen before the bytes leave the client, which makes it an architectural choice rather than a vendor preference.
Get Started
- Upload encrypted data
- Encryption features
- L3, the S3-compatible API
- Migrate from another provider
- Create an API key and start on the free tier
Stay in Touch
To learn more about Lighthouse, visit the official website, read the documentation, or jump in on GitHub. You can also join the community on Discord, X, Telegram, or LinkedIn.











































































