Best NFT.storage Alternatives in 2026 (Featuring AIOZ Pin)

If you're searching for NFT.storage alternatives, you're probably here because the service you built on stopped working. NFT.storage decommissioned Classic uploads on June 30, 2024, across the web app, API, SDK, and Pinning API. Existing pinned data still resolves, but nothing new goes in, so any project still pointing at it needs somewhere else to pin NFT assets and metadata. This roundup covers four real options with current pricing, checked directly against each vendor's own pages, not last year's numbers.

TL;DR:

• NFT.storage itself recommends Pinata (50% off the first month, code NFTSTORAGE50) and Lighthouse as migration targets
• Filebase is the cheapest entry point
• AIOZ Pin is the option NFT.storage doesn't mention, with flat per-TB pricing and a dedicated pinNft() method for pinning NFT assets and metadata together

Why NFT.storage Isn't an Option Anymore

NFT.storage's own GitHub repository states plainly that "as of June 30, 2024, we have officially decommissioned NFT.Storage Classic uploads." That covers the web app, REST API, SDK, and Pinning API, so there's no way to pin new files through the service today. Data already pinned before that date stays reachable through the NFT.Storage Gateway, IPFS, and Filecoin, but the service itself warns that retrieval performance may degrade over time as it's no longer actively maintained. If your project depends on new uploads, or you want a service that's actually still being developed, you need one of the alternatives below.

AIOZ Pin: Flat Per-TB Pricing With a Dedicated NFT Method

AIOZ Pin bills storage and bandwidth at a flat $20 per TB per month each, prorated daily, with the first 40,000 pinned files free and $0.10 per additional 1,000 after that. There's no credit card involved, you fund an account with an AIOZ token wallet. What makes it relevant specifically for NFT migration is pinNft(), a method in the @aioznetwork/aioz-pin-sdk Node.js package that pins an NFT's asset and its metadata together in one call, rather than requiring you to pin each piece separately. AIOZ Pin's API also implements the IPFS Pinning Service API standard, the same spec Pinata and other providers use, so a migration script written against that standard needs an endpoint and key swap, not a rewrite. See How AIOZ Pin Works for the full mechanics.

Pinata: The Officially Recommended Migration Target

Pinata is the alternative NFT.storage itself points displaced users toward (see the full AIOZ Pin vs Pinata breakdown for how it stacks up against the option above), with a specific incentive: NFT.storage's migration guide lists the code NFTSTORAGE50 for 50% off your first month. Pinata's own pricing has three real tiers: Free ($0/month, 1GB storage, 10GB bandwidth, 10,000 requests), Picnic ($20/month, 1TB storage with $0.07/GB overage, 500GB bandwidth with $0.10/GB overage), and Fiesta ($100/month, 5TB storage with $0.035/GB overage, 2.5TB bandwidth with $0.08/GB overage). Pinata also has the deepest NFT-specific tutorial library of any option here, with step-by-step guides for pinning ERC-721 metadata through Foundry, Viem, and Crossmint. If you want the migration path NFT.storage explicitly endorsed, or the most mature NFT-minting documentation, Pinata is it.

Filebase: S3-Compatible IPFS at the Lowest Entry Price

Filebase's Free plan gives you 5GB of pooled storage, 500 pinned files, 1 bucket, 1 IPNS name, 1 gateway, and 1GB of egress at no cost. Its Pro plan, at $7.50/month, jumps to 500GB pooled storage (plus $0.015/GB overage), unlimited pinned files, 100 buckets, 100 IPNS names, 5 gateways, 250GB egress, and unlimited API requests. Filebase's headline feature is an S3-compatible API, useful if your NFT project already has code written against AWS S3 and you want to point it at decentralized storage without rewriting your storage layer. It doesn't have dedicated NFT minting tools the way Pinata does, but its low entry price and unlimited pin count on the Pro plan make it a realistic option for smaller collections.

Lighthouse: Filecoin-Backed Storage for Longer-Term Plans

Lighthouse's Filecoin-backed tiers run Lite at $12/month for 500GB, Pro at $20/month for 1TiB, and Premium at $49/month for 2.5TB, with encryption, IPNS, and migration support added at the Premium level. NFT.storage's own migration notes list Lighthouse alongside Pinata as a recommended option. Lighthouse positions itself around long-term Filecoin-backed storage rather than a pinning-service API you'd script against the same way as the others here, so it fits best if your priority is long-horizon archival rather than an API-driven pinning workflow.

How to Actually Migrate Your Pinned NFTs

The mechanics are the same regardless of which alternative you pick: pull the CIDs of everything currently pinned on NFT.storage (from your own records, since the service itself is winding down active support), download the underlying files and metadata while they're still reachable through the NFT.Storage Gateway, then re-pin each asset and its metadata to your new provider. If your smart contracts reference ipfs://<CID> URIs directly, the CID for the same file content will be identical on any IPFS-compliant provider, so re-pinning the same bytes doesn't break existing on-chain references. What changes is which service is responsible for keeping that CID available and which gateway serves it fastest, not the CID itself.

Which Alternative Should You Pick

Pick Pinata if you want NFT.storage's own recommended path and the deepest NFT-tooling documentation. Pick Filebase if cost at low volume matters most and you're comfortable without dedicated NFT tooling. Pick Lighthouse if long-term Filecoin-backed archival matters more than an active pinning API. Pick AIOZ Pin if you want flat, predictable per-TB pricing and a single SDK call that pins an NFT's asset and metadata together, without needing NFT.storage's blessing to consider it a real option.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is NFT.storage completely shut down? Not entirely. New uploads stopped on June 30, 2024, but data already pinned before that date is still reachable through the NFT.Storage Gateway, IPFS, and Filecoin, with the service itself warning that retrieval performance may decline over time.

What alternative does NFT.storage itself recommend? NFT.storage's own migration guide points users to Pinata (with a 50%-off first month code, NFTSTORAGE50) and Lighthouse.

Is AIOZ Pin a good NFT.storage replacement? It's a real option worth evaluating: flat $20 per TB pricing for storage and bandwidth, a dedicated pinNft() SDK method for pinning NFT assets and metadata together, and IPFS Pinning Service API standard compliance. NFT.storage doesn't list it as an official migration target, so you won't find it in their own guide.

Will re-pinning my NFTs to a new provider break my smart contracts? No, as long as the file content is identical. A CID is derived from the file's content, so the same bytes produce the same CID on any IPFS-compliant provider, and on-chain ipfs://<CID> references keep working.

Which NFT.storage alternative is cheapest? Filebase has the lowest entry price, with a free tier (5GB storage, 500 pinned files) and a $7.50/month Pro plan with unlimited pinned files.

Do any of these alternatives use the same API as NFT.storage? AIOZ Pin and Pinata both implement the IPFS Pinning Service API standard, the same specification NFT.storage's own Pinning API followed, which makes migrating pinning logic more of an endpoint and key swap than a full rewrite.

Related Reading

• AIOZ Pin vs Pinata: IPFS Pinning Service Compared 2026 - a full head-to-head on pricing and features between two of the options above
• How AIOZ Pin Works: Pinning, Gateways, and NFT Tools - the mechanics behind AIOZ Pin's NFT Management and pinning components
• What Is IPFS? The Ultimate Guide To Decentralized Storage - background on the protocol every option here is built on

References

• NFT.Storage GitHub Repository
• Pinata Pricing
• Filebase Pricing
• Lighthouse Pricing