Comparison
Operational teams pick FRB over templates
Templates are great for R&D, but production desks need signed binaries, telemetry, and service guarantees. FRB delivers those out of the box while keeping the flexible node architecture.
Where templates fit
Open-source templates shine when you want to hack quickly, test exotic strategies, or study the internals of MEV routing. They’re flexible, but you inherit the entire surface area: Docker upkeep, RPC rotation, log shipping, and compliance paperwork. For hobby projects this may be fine. For desks handling client capital, the “DIY everything” tax shows up the moment something breaks and you have to prove what ran.
FRB’s value for production desks
FRB compresses the boring work into a guided experience. Signed install, onboarding tour, realtime telemetry, policy toggles, and a literal Knowledge Base your stakeholders can browse. You still get custom strategy slots, but you aren’t rewriting every primitive just to answer whether a route is healthy.
- Changelogs + release hashes published on /releases.
- Refund, support, and vulnerability policies documented for auditors.
- Telemetry exports + Ops Pulse view for deterministic postmortems.
Decision checklist
- Do you have staff to maintain infra, monitoring, and compliance docs?
- Will procurement accept unsigned binaries pulled from GitHub?
- Can your ops team rotate relays, wallets, and permissions at 3 a.m.?
If any answer is “no”, FRB removes that burden without limiting how you model strategies. You can still plug in custom filters or pair external analytics tools—the difference is you start from a stable baseline.
Total cost of ownership
DIY templates look “free” until you factor in the engineers keeping Docker alive, rotating RPC keys, writing postmortems, or proving refunds. FRB bakes those workflows into the UI and supplies evidence through metrics, telemetry, andrefund artifacts. If you track engineering hours honestly, FRB usually wins within one quarter.
| Metric | FRB Agent | DIY templates |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment time | 10 min (signed installer + pairing) | Days/weeks (Docker, scripts, infra choices) |
| Networks supported | Ethereum, Polygon, BNB, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism | Usually single-chain, manual forks |
| Telemetry & dashboards | Built-in charts, logs, alerts, saved views | DIY Grafana/Prometheus or none |
| Governance artifacts | Refund, SLA, Compliance, Releases | N/A |
| Contract operations | Pause/Resume/Withdraw, bulk actions, saved filters | Manual CLI edits |
Why templates struggle
- Unverified Docker images or scripts with no provenance.
- No telemetry or logging baseline; requires additional stack.
- No net-new features like compact density, contract assignment, or risk locking.
FRB advantage
- Signed builds and published release notes.
- Unified dashboard with A/B tested CTA flow and contracts UI.
- Governance docs: Refund, Support/SLA, Vulnerability policy.
Evaluation kit
Share this comparison with procurement and include the Releases page for checksum proof.
Take the next step
Install FRB, connect Web3 on `/app/login`, and import the benchmarks dataset.
FAQ
Can we fork FRB? FRB is commercial software; you don’t fork it, but you can extend it via strategy modules and export data to your stack.
We already have scripts—why change? Keep them for research, but let FRB own production guardrails so audits, refunds, and telemetry don’t rely on one engineer’s laptop.
How does FRB compare to Telegram bots? Telegram bots rarely offer provenance or refunds. FRB publishes releases, maintains support channels, and documents every promise so stakeholders can sign off.