oracles.ink

RedStone vs Pyth Network

RedStone (Modular oracle that ships new LST, LRT and RWA feeds faster than anyone) versus Pyth Network (Low-latency pull oracle sourced straight from 120+ first-party trading firms and exchanges) — how they differ on type, coverage and what they’re built for.

RedStonePyth Network
TypePush + PullPull
Update modelPull-first modular design: data is signed off-chain and delivered on-demand, or pushed on a schedule — pick per use case.Publishers stream prices to Pythnet → relayed via Wormhole → pulled on-demand by the consuming chain. Updates ≈ every 400 ms.
Chains100+90+
Feeds1,000+1,300+
SecuritySigned data packages verified on-chain; modular delivery across EVM and cross-chain.Aggregates 120+ first-party publishers (exchanges, market makers) on Pythnet with confidence intervals.
TVS*~$3.6B~$3.1B
TokenREDPYTH
Best atYield-bearing collateral — the go-to oracle for liquid staking (LST) and liquid restaking (LRT) tokensHFT-grade latency and real-world assets (equities/FX/commodities); pull means you only pay gas when you read

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

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

Pyth Network

  • Lowest latency (≈400 ms)
  • First-party data from real trading firms
  • Huge non-crypto coverage (equities, FX)
  • Pull integration adds contract complexity
  • Relies on Wormhole cross-chain messaging

Bottom line

Pick RedStone when yield-bearing collateral matters most; pick Pyth Network when hft-grade latency and real-world assets (equities/fx/commodities); pull means you only pay gas when you read matters more.