oracles.ink

Chainlink vs RedStone

Chainlink (The industry-standard oracle network ) versus RedStone (Modular oracle that ships new LST, LRT and RWA feeds faster than anyone) — how they differ on type, coverage and what they’re built for.

	Chainlink	RedStone
Type	Push + Pull	Push + Pull
Update model	Decentralized Oracle Networks (DONs); heartbeat + deviation threshold. Data Streams add a low-latency pull mode.	Pull-first modular design: data is signed off-chain and delivered on-demand, or pushed on a schedule — pick per use case.
Chains	40+	100+
Feeds	1,000+	1,000+
Security	Many independent, Sybil-resistant node operators per DON, with LINK staking and reputation.	Signed data packages verified on-chain; modular delivery across EVM and cross-chain.
TVS*	~$33B	~$3.6B
Token	LINK	RED
Best at	Broadest coverage + a full stack: CCIP cross-chain, VRF randomness, Functions, Proof of Reserve, Data Streams	Yield-bearing collateral — the go-to oracle for liquid staking (LST) and liquid restaking (LRT) tokens

* Approximate total value secured — dated market snapshot (DefiLlama / provider reports, 2026).

Chainlink

Most battle-tested and widely integrated
Widest chain + feed coverage
Full product suite beyond price (CCIP, VRF, PoR)

Push feeds cost on-chain gas to maintain
Standard feeds less granular than pull for HFT-style use

RedStone

Fastest to support new LST/LRT/RWA assets
Modular and gas-efficient (pull)
Very broad chain coverage

Younger brand than Chainlink
Push mode less mature than its pull mode

Bottom line

Pick Chainlink when broadest coverage + a full stack: ccip cross-chain, vrf randomness, functions, proof of reserve, data streams matters most; pick RedStone when yield-bearing collateral matters more.