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

24h window · 24 hours observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 21:23:18 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
26.7
p95 ms
48.1
Trend
−8%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
37,888
3 (3rd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
85.2
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
87.0
p95 ms
99.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
37,247
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
80.3
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
104.8
p95 ms
121.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
36,391
5
Provider
dRPC
Score
79.4
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
41.9
p95 ms
127.2
Trend
−23%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
35,447
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
96.3
Status
Excellent
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
28.0
p95 ms
60.7
Trend
+119%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
38,186
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
77.4
Status
Good
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
46.3
p95 ms
137.6
Trend
+7%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
37,888
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
68.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
97.4%
p50 ms
111.1
p95 ms
207.0
Trend
+24%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
7,491
8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
56.0
Status
Degraded
Availability
69.2%
p50 ms
348.0
p95 ms
1883.1
Trend
not enough history
Correct
96.6%
Behind
0.79
Samples
7,790
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
44.0
Status
Poor
Availability
23.4%
p50 ms
20.9
p95 ms
125.3
Trend
+6%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
32,992

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%	26.7	48.1	−8%	100.0%	0.42	37,888
3 (3rd)	NodeReal	85.2	Good	100.0%	87.0	99.2	steady	100.0%	0.36	37,247
4	Blast API	80.3	Good	99.9%	104.8	121.9	steady	100.0%	0.41	36,391
5	dRPC	79.4	Good	99.9%	41.9	127.2	−23%	100.0%	0.36	35,447
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	96.3	Excellent	99.9%	28.0	60.7	+119%	100.0%	0.45	38,186
6	MEV Blocker	77.4	Good	99.7%	46.3	137.6	+7%	100.0%	0.43	37,888
7	Merkle	68.4	Degraded	97.4%	111.1	207.0	+24%	100.0%	0.42	7,491
8	1RPConerpc	56.0	Degraded	69.2%	348.0	1883.1	not enough history	96.6%	0.79	7,790
9	Cloudflare	44.0	Poor	23.4%	20.9	125.3	+6%	100.0%	—	32,992

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

nodereal — 4 of 37247 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 1% of requests were rate limited (451 of 36383); excluded from availability
drpc — 2% of requests were rate limited (625 of 35436); excluded from availability
merkle — 95% of requests were rate limited (6275 of 6617); excluded from availability
onerpc — 93% of requests were rate limited (6421 of 6875); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 3% of requests were rate limited (905 of 31572); 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

24h 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

24h window · generated 2026-10-28 21:23:15 UTC · cohort of 8

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)	drpc	0.36	4.32	3	14,765
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.36	4.34	3	16,126
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.41	4.87	3	15,427
4	merkle	0.42	5.04	2	50
5	tenderly	0.42	5.08	3	16,534
6	mevblocker	0.43	5.13	3	16,468
7	publicnode	0.45	5.41	3	16,727
8	onerpc	0.79	9.51	2	130

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
Virginia	28.3 ms	130 ms	250 ms	83.4%	3,239	69,737
Coventry	50.2 ms	121 ms	261 ms	82.8%	3,560	68,711
Amsterdam	40.9 ms	113 ms	166 ms	84.3%	3,638	68,108
Frankfurt	29.1 ms	115 ms	166 ms	86.1%	4,244	64,764

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