Pinata has long been the default choice for IPFS pinning. It was one of the first services to make IPFS accessible to developers, and for a while it was the obvious answer to "how do I pin files without running my own node?"
But in 2026, developers are asking more questions. Pinata's free tier has shrunk. Pricing has crept up. And for smaller projects or individual developers, paying for features you don't use — or hitting limits you didn't expect — is frustrating enough to start looking elsewhere.
If you're in that position, this guide is for you. We'll break down the most relevant Pinata alternatives, what they're best for, and how their pricing actually compares.
Why Developers Look for Pinata Alternatives
Pinata isn't bad software — it's genuinely well-built and has a solid API. But a few recurring pain points push developers to look for alternatives:
- Pricing complexity. Pinata's plans are based on a combination of storage, requests, and bandwidth. Once you go beyond the free tier, costs can become unpredictable depending on how your content is accessed.
- Free tier limitations. The free plan has become increasingly restrictive, making it harder to evaluate the service properly before committing.
- Overkill for simple use cases. Pinata is built for scale — NFT platforms, large media libraries, enterprise workflows. If you just need reliable IPFS storage for a side project or small app, the feature set can feel like more than you need.
- No private storage on lower plans. If you want to store files that shouldn't be publicly accessible on the IPFS network, your options with Pinata are limited without upgrading.
The Main Alternatives
Tarlo
Tarlo is a managed IPFS pinning service built around simplicity and flat-rate pricing. There are two plans: Starter at €5/month for 10 GB, and Pro at €15/month for 250 GB. Both include unlimited bandwidth with no per-request charges — you pay for storage, nothing else.
What sets Tarlo apart is the private storage option on the Pro plan. Files marked as private are stored on an isolated IPFS node running in offline mode, meaning they're never announced to the public IPFS network. This is genuine privacy — not just an access control layer on top of public content.
Tarlo also includes a clean web interface with drag-and-drop uploads, folder support, CID importing, password-protected file sharing, and Google Sign-In. It's designed to be usable without touching an API if you don't want to.
Best for: developers and creators who want straightforward IPFS storage at a predictable price, with optional true private storage.
Filebase
Filebase positions itself as an S3-compatible object storage layer on top of decentralized networks including IPFS, Sia, and Skynet. If you're already using S3 APIs in your stack, Filebase is worth considering since you can swap it in with minimal code changes.
Pricing is usage-based — around $0.005 per GB stored per month plus egress fees. This works out cheap at low storage volumes but can become expensive if your content is heavily accessed, since bandwidth is metered.
Best for: teams already using S3-compatible tooling who want decentralized storage as a drop-in replacement.
Web3.Storage
Web3.Storage was a popular free option backed by Protocol Labs, the organisation behind IPFS. However, the service has undergone significant changes and the original free offering has been wound down. It now operates under a different model with a focus on enterprise customers.
If you were relying on Web3.Storage's free tier, you've likely already had to migrate. It's worth checking their current offering directly, but it's no longer the straightforward free option it once was.
Best for: larger projects with enterprise requirements and budget to match.
Infura IPFS
Infura, primarily known for Ethereum node infrastructure, also offers IPFS pinning. It's a solid choice if you're already using Infura for blockchain development since it keeps your infrastructure consolidated under one provider.
The IPFS offering is API-first — there's no web interface for managing files. Pricing is based on storage and bandwidth, and costs scale with usage in a similar way to Pinata.
Best for: blockchain developers already in the Infura ecosystem who need IPFS as part of a broader Web3 stack.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Service | Starting Price | 250 GB | Bandwidth fees | Private storage | Web interface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tarlo | €5/mo | €15/mo | None | Yes (Pro) | Yes |
| Pinata | $0 (limited) | ~$20+/mo | Metered | Limited | Yes |
| Filebase | Usage-based | ~$1.25/mo* | Yes | No | Yes |
| Web3.Storage | Enterprise | Custom | Varies | No | Limited |
| Infura IPFS | Usage-based | Variable | Yes | No | No |
* Filebase storage cost only — egress fees apply separately depending on access volume.
The Bandwidth Fee Problem
One thing worth calling out specifically: bandwidth fees are where many IPFS pinning services get expensive in ways that aren't obvious upfront.
With usage-based pricing, your monthly bill depends not just on what you store, but on how often your content is accessed. If you're storing media files, NFT assets, or any content that gets retrieved frequently, those egress costs add up fast. A file that's popular can cost you far more than one that sits quietly in storage.
Watch out for bandwidth surprises
A 50 MB video pinned to IPFS and accessed 10,000 times is 500 GB of egress. At typical cloud egress rates of $0.09/GB, that's $45 in bandwidth fees — on top of your storage cost. Flat-rate services eliminate this uncertainty entirely.
This is one of the main reasons flat-rate pricing is genuinely useful for IPFS storage rather than just a marketing angle. When content is designed to be shared and accessed across the network, metered bandwidth creates unpredictable costs.
Which One Should You Choose?
The right answer depends on your situation:
- If you want simple, predictable pricing with no bandwidth surprises and a clean web interface — Tarlo is the most straightforward option.
- If you're already using S3-compatible tooling and want to swap in decentralized storage with minimal code changes — Filebase is worth evaluating.
- If you need private IPFS storage where files are genuinely isolated from the public network — Tarlo's Pro plan is currently the clearest option for this.
- If you're deep in the Ethereum/Web3 ecosystem and want consolidated infrastructure — Infura makes sense if you're already there.
- If you need enterprise scale with SLAs and custom contracts — Web3.Storage or Pinata's enterprise tiers are worth a conversation.
Final Thoughts
Pinata pioneered accessible IPFS pinning and deserves credit for that. But the landscape has matured, and there are now solid alternatives for every type of user — from individual developers to large teams.
The key questions to ask any IPFS pinning service before committing: How is bandwidth handled? What happens if my content is popular? Is there a web interface, or is it API-only? And if privacy matters to you — is the "private" option actually private, or just access-controlled on top of public infrastructure?
Those answers will narrow your choice quickly.