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

24h window · 24 hours observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-27 12:02:53 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
96.1
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
26.8
p95 ms
55.6
Trend
+89%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
3.90
Samples
37,159
2 (2nd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
88.9
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
23.0
p95 ms
85.7
Trend
+495%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
1.68
Samples
36,322
3 (3rd)
Provider
BNB Chain
Score
86.8
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
22.0
p95 ms
84.7
Trend
+141%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
4.47
Samples
74,300
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
77.3
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
103.9
p95 ms
123.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
3.26
Samples
36,025
5
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
61.3
Status
Degraded
Availability
93.2%
p50 ms
372.0
p95 ms
2472.8
Trend
not enough history
Correct
100.0%
Behind
7.35
Samples
7,707

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	PublicNode	96.1	Excellent	100.0%	26.8	55.6	+89%	100.0%	3.90	37,159
2 (2nd)	NodeReal	88.9	Good	100.0%	23.0	85.7	+495%	100.0%	1.68	36,322
3 (3rd)	BNB Chain	86.8	Good	100.0%	22.0	84.7	+141%	100.0%	4.47	74,300
4	Blast API	77.3	Good	100.0%	103.9	123.5	steady	100.0%	3.26	36,025
5	1RPConerpc	61.3	Degraded	93.2%	372.0	2472.8	not enough history	100.0%	7.35	7,707

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 — 726 of 74300 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 1% of requests were rate limited (532 of 36023); excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (6386 of 6815); 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

24h 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

24h window · generated 2026-10-27 12:03:10 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
1 (1st)	nodereal	1.68	0.76	49	15,735
2 (2nd)	blastapi	3.26	1.47	70	15,493
3 (3rd)	publicnode	3.90	1.76	72	16,285
4	bnbchain	4.47	2.01	60	32,549
5	onerpc	7.35	3.31	42	155

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
Virginia	6.2 ms	42.2 ms	74.6 ms	94.5%	1,897	48,168
Frankfurt	23.6 ms	117 ms	128 ms	94.4%	1,913	47,450
Coventry	83.9 ms	115 ms	333 ms	94.3%	1,955	48,214
Amsterdam	20.0 ms	115 ms	129 ms	94.4%	1,881	47,714

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