Network

BSC

BNB · chain id 56 · 450 ms block time · 5 providers, 8 endpoints

Just tell meWhich BNB Smart Chain provider leadsThe ranking below, read as an answer — with the figures behind it and what it refuses to claim.Before you payDo you need a dedicated node?What the free endpoints actually manage, and how often they refuse. Often the answer is no.

BNB Smart Chain uses Parlia with fast finality. Sub-second block times mean a single block of lag is normal and is not treated as staleness; the staleness threshold is derived from this block time rather than being a fixed number of blocks.

Provider ranking

30d window · 30.0 days observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-27 10:39:52 UTC

Excellent / Good— Fast, available and correct all window
Fair / Degraded— Measurable failures or slow tails
Poor— Failing often enough to affect an application
Insufficient data— Too few samples to score at all

1 (1st)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
95.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
23.9
p95 ms
49.5
Trend
+5%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
4.73
Samples
1,153,871
2 (2nd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
87.7
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
19.4
p95 ms
83.7
Trend
+213%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
1.77
Samples
1,126,722
3 (3rd)
Provider
BNB Chain
Score
85.6
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
18.5
p95 ms
82.6
Trend
+235%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
4.62
Samples
2,308,114
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
76.7
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
104.0
p95 ms
121.6
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
3.35
Samples
1,132,410
5
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
29.2
Status
Poor
Availability
13.4%
p50 ms
399.0
p95 ms
4903.0
Trend
−42%
Correct
99.8%
Behind
7.54
Samples
296,705

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	PublicNode	95.5	Excellent	100.0%	23.9	49.5	+5%	100.0%	4.73	1,153,871
2 (2nd)	NodeReal	87.7	Good	99.9%	19.4	83.7	+213%	100.0%	1.77	1,126,722
3 (3rd)	BNB Chain	85.6	Good	100.0%	18.5	82.6	+235%	100.0%	4.62	2,308,114
4	Blast API	76.7	Good	100.0%	104.0	121.6	steady	100.0%	3.35	1,132,410
5	1RPConerpc	29.2	Poor	13.4%	399.0	4903.0	−42%	99.8%	7.54	296,705

Take it awayCSV JSONevery provider in this window, with each score component

publicnode — 3% of requests targeted methods this provider offers only on a paid plan; excluded from availability
bnbchain — 22589 of 2308103 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 1% of requests were rate limited (15704 of 1132361); excluded from availability
onerpc — 67% of requests were rate limited (177802 of 267138); excluded from availability

5 providers scored against each other.

The score weights availability at 40%, latency at 30%, correctness at 20% and head freshness at 10%. Correctness also acts as a ceiling: a provider that answers quickly and wrongly cannot be rated healthy on speed alone. Full methodology

Latency over time

30d window · top 5 by score

95th percentile, computed over successful requests only. A request that timed out is not a latency sample; it is counted against availability instead. Gaps are gaps — periods with no collection are not bridged.

Head freshness

30d window · generated 2026-10-27 11:14:24 UTC · cohort of 5

How far behind the chain each provider's data is. Latency cannot answer this: an endpoint can reply in 8 ms with a head from four minutes ago, and every speed measurement will still rate it excellent.

Providers ranked by distance behind the cohort head
#	Provider	Mean blocks behind	≈ seconds	Worst blocks	Compared
5	onerpc	7.54	3.39	945	4,939
1 (1st)	nodereal	1.77	0.80	167	487,818
2 (2nd)	blastapi	3.35	1.51	1,926	490,233
4	publicnode	4.73	2.13	271,510	505,663
3 (3rd)	bnbchain	4.62	2.08	183	1,011,556

Each observed head is compared against the cohort reference for its instant: the highest head any measured provider had reached, after discarding heads implausibly far above the cohort median and time-aligning samples taken moments apart. Lag is therefore relative to the fastest-updating provider in the set, not to an absolute truth. A cohort of fewer than two providers produces no freshness data at all.

From each region

The same BSC measurements, grouped by the vantage point they were taken from. A provider that answers in 40 ms from one region can take 220 ms from another, and the ranking above is an average across whichever regions are reporting.

BSC broken out by region
Region	Median	p95	p99	Success	Rate limited	Samples
Coventry	30.8 ms	109 ms	150 ms	93.5%	53,230	1,507,264
Virginia	5.9 ms	30.6 ms	75.8 ms	93.5%	53,349	1,507,061
Amsterdam	20.4 ms	115 ms	134 ms	93.5%	53,522	1,506,942
Frankfurt	23.5 ms	112 ms	130 ms	93.3%	56,187	1,500,256

Percentiles are over successful responses only. A request that timed out is not a latency sample; it is counted against availability instead.