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

7d window · 7.0 days observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 22:04:07 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

8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
60.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
79.4%
p50 ms
202.6
p95 ms
2384.2
Trend
steady
Correct
98.0%
Behind
0.86
Samples
55,214
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
71.3
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.2%
p50 ms
108.4
p95 ms
198.6
Trend
+7%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.47
Samples
53,147
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
78.7
Status
Good
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
46.8
p95 ms
138.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
268,573
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
81.4
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
103.7
p95 ms
121.7
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
260,115
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
46.2
Status
Poor
Availability
23.3%
p50 ms
17.8
p95 ms
119.6
Trend
+13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
254,315
4
Provider
NodeReal
Score
85.5
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
87.0
p95 ms
99.3
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
264,174
3 (3rd)
Provider
dRPC
Score
89.1
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
37.8
p95 ms
82.6
Trend
+61%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
261,928
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
97.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
25.9
p95 ms
53.6
Trend
+13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
270,745
1 (1st)
Provider
Tenderly
Score
99.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
26.3
p95 ms
45.3
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
268,764

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
8	1RPConerpc	60.4	Degraded	79.4%	202.6	2384.2	steady	98.0%	0.86	55,214
7	Merkle	71.3	Degraded	99.2%	108.4	198.6	+7%	100.0%	0.47	53,147
6	MEV Blocker	78.7	Good	99.7%	46.8	138.5	steady	100.0%	0.42	268,573
5	Blast API	81.4	Good	100.0%	103.7	121.7	steady	100.0%	0.40	260,115
9	Cloudflare	46.2	Poor	23.3%	17.8	119.6	+13%	100.0%	—	254,315
4	NodeReal	85.5	Good	100.0%	87.0	99.3	steady	100.0%	0.36	264,174
3 (3rd)	dRPC	89.1	Good	100.0%	37.8	82.6	+61%	100.0%	0.37	261,928
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	97.5	Excellent	100.0%	25.9	53.6	+13%	100.0%	0.45	270,745
1 (1st)	Tenderly	99.5	Excellent	100.0%	26.3	45.3	steady	100.0%	0.43	268,764

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

drpc — 1% of requests were rate limited (2636 of 261914); excluded from availability
nodereal — 4 of 264174 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 1% of requests were rate limited (2742 of 260046); excluded from availability
merkle — 96% of requests were rate limited (44867 of 46891); excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (45933 of 48685); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 1% of requests were rate limited (2968 of 243792); 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

7d 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

7d window · generated 2026-10-28 22:04:07 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)	nodereal	0.36	4.29	3	114,301
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.37	4.41	4	111,961
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.86	4	110,973
4	mevblocker	0.42	5.10	3	116,737
5	tenderly	0.43	5.20	3	117,249
6	publicnode	0.45	5.41	4	118,582
7	merkle	0.47	5.63	2	341
8	onerpc	0.86	10.30	4	916

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	26.7 ms	130 ms	214 ms	83.6%	23,163	495,036
Coventry	48.8 ms	112 ms	220 ms	83.2%	24,566	491,511
Amsterdam	38.8 ms	114 ms	156 ms	83.4%	24,409	491,096
Frankfurt	27.4 ms	113 ms	154 ms	84.7%	27,012	479,332

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