Network

Ethereum

ETH · chain id 1 · 12000 ms block time · 9 providers, 12 endpoints

Just tell meWhich Ethereum 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.

Proof-of-stake finality is reached after two justified epochs, roughly 12.8 minutes. Freshness is measured against the latest execution head, which reorgs are expected to affect.

Provider ranking

6h window · 6.0 hours observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 22:03:32 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
Tenderly
Score
99.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
26.6
p95 ms
49.1
Trend
−6%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
8,210
2 (2nd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
85.9
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
87.7
p95 ms
101.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.38
Samples
8,050
3 (3rd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
84.8
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
36.4
p95 ms
104.4
Trend
−50%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
8,240
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
77.3
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
106.6
p95 ms
130.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
7,511
5
Provider
dRPC
Score
76.8
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
46.7
p95 ms
132.9
Trend
+15%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.38
Samples
8,076
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
73.1
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.6%
p50 ms
52.8
p95 ms
148.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
8,207
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
67.7
Status
Degraded
Availability
96.0%
p50 ms
120.2
p95 ms
175.0
Trend
+7%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.60
Samples
1,613
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
39.0
Status
Poor
Availability
23.2%
p50 ms
25.8
p95 ms
139.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
7,691
9
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
1,617

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	Tenderly	99.5	Excellent	100.0%	26.6	49.1	−6%	100.0%	0.42	8,210
2 (2nd)	NodeReal	85.9	Good	100.0%	87.7	101.2	steady	100.0%	0.38	8,050
3 (3rd)	PublicNode	84.8	Good	99.8%	36.4	104.4	−50%	100.0%	0.45	8,240
4	Blast API	77.3	Good	99.8%	106.6	130.5	steady	100.0%	0.40	7,511
5	dRPC	76.8	Good	99.8%	46.7	132.9	+15%	100.0%	0.38	8,076
6	MEV Blocker	73.1	Degraded	99.6%	52.8	148.0	steady	100.0%	0.43	8,207
7	Merkle	67.7	Degraded	96.0%	120.2	175.0	+7%	100.0%	0.60	1,613
8	Cloudflare	39.0	Poor	23.2%	25.8	139.0	steady	100.0%	—	7,691
9	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	1,617

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

blastapi — 3% of requests were rate limited (204 of 7508); excluded from availability
drpc — 36 of 8076 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
merkle — 93% of requests were rate limited (1325 of 1425); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 73 of 7380 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
onerpc — 99% of requests were rate limited (1403 of 1415); excluded from availability

9 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

6h window · top 6 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

6h window · generated 2026-10-28 22:03:32 UTC · cohort of 7

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
4	tenderly	0.42	4.99	2	3,580
6	publicnode	0.45	5.34	3	3,603
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.38	4.55	2	3,484
5	mevblocker	0.43	5.18	3	3,560
7	merkle	0.60	7.20	1	10
1 (1st)	drpc	0.38	4.55	2	3,479
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.85	3	3,063

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 Ethereum 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.

Ethereum broken out by region
Region	Median	p95	p99	Success	Rate limited	Samples
Amsterdam	44.8 ms	113 ms	160 ms	83.5%	714	15,099
Virginia	43.2 ms	154 ms	327 ms	83.3%	689	15,090
Coventry	54.8 ms	128 ms	258 ms	82.1%	827	14,617
Frankfurt	32.5 ms	117 ms	171 ms	85.2%	811	14,409

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