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

1h window · 60 minutes observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-27 10:36:35 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
96.3
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
28.1
p95 ms
56.3
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
3.69
Samples
1,605
2 (2nd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
83.3
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
23.5
p95 ms
85.6
Trend
+10%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
1.72
Samples
1,570
3 (3rd)
Provider
BNB Chain
Score
81.6
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
22.1
p95 ms
84.8
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
4.09
Samples
3,217
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
66.9
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
107.8
p95 ms
128.4
Trend
+13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
3.03
Samples
1,587
5
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
0.0
Status
Poor
Availability
0.0%
p50 ms
0.0
p95 ms
0.0
Trend
not enough history
Correct
—
Behind
—
Samples
319

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	PublicNode	96.3	Excellent	100.0%	28.1	56.3	steady	100.0%	3.69	1,605
2 (2nd)	NodeReal	83.3	Good	100.0%	23.5	85.6	+10%	100.0%	1.72	1,570
3 (3rd)	BNB Chain	81.6	Good	100.0%	22.1	84.8	steady	100.0%	4.09	3,217
4	Blast API	66.9	Degraded	100.0%	107.8	128.4	+13%	100.0%	3.03	1,587
5	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	319

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 — 31 of 3217 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 14 of 1587 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
onerpc — 100% of requests were rate limited (279 of 280); 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

1h 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

1h window · generated 2026-10-27 10:38:35 UTC · cohort of 4

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	1.74	0.78	21	678
2 (2nd)	blastapi	2.99	1.34	40	682
3 (3rd)	publicnode	3.68	1.66	40	696
4	bnbchain	4.07	1.83	43	1,402

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
Frankfurt	23.6 ms	110 ms	133 ms	94.5%	82	2,100
Amsterdam	21.0 ms	123 ms	136 ms	94.5%	82	2,095
Coventry	84.0 ms	119 ms	339 ms	94.5%	81	2,089
Virginia	6.2 ms	23.0 ms	37.1 ms	94.6%	74	1,944

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