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 21:22:24 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
26.5
p95 ms
49.8
Trend
−13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
8,703
2 (2nd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
88.2
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
87.6
p95 ms
101.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.39
Samples
8,543
3 (3rd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
87.2
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
37.6
p95 ms
104.1
Trend
+65%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
8,753
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
80.7
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
107.4
p95 ms
131.1
Trend
−7%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
8,048
5
Provider
dRPC
Score
79.2
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
47.5
p95 ms
138.4
Trend
−18%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
8,429
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
77.2
Status
Good
Availability
99.6%
p50 ms
53.4
p95 ms
148.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
8,703
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
68.2
Status
Degraded
Availability
96.8%
p50 ms
120.8
p95 ms
220.6
Trend
+36%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
1,716
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
41.7
Status
Poor
Availability
23.2%
p50 ms
26.6
p95 ms
146.2
Trend
−16%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
7,932
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
1,711

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%	26.5	49.8	−13%	100.0%	0.42	8,703
2 (2nd)	NodeReal	88.2	Good	100.0%	87.6	101.0	steady	100.0%	0.39	8,543
3 (3rd)	PublicNode	87.2	Good	99.8%	37.6	104.1	+65%	100.0%	0.45	8,753
4	Blast API	80.7	Good	99.8%	107.4	131.1	−7%	100.0%	0.41	8,048
5	dRPC	79.2	Good	99.8%	47.5	138.4	−18%	100.0%	0.37	8,429
6	MEV Blocker	77.2	Good	99.6%	53.4	148.0	steady	100.0%	0.43	8,703
7	Merkle	68.2	Degraded	96.8%	120.8	220.6	+36%	100.0%	0.44	1,716
8	Cloudflare	41.7	Poor	23.2%	26.6	146.2	−16%	100.0%	—	7,932
9	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	1,711

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

blastapi — 2% of requests were rate limited (200 of 8045); excluded from availability
drpc — 1% of requests were rate limited (85 of 8428); excluded from availability
merkle — 94% of requests were rate limited (1421 of 1515); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 2% of requests were rate limited (136 of 7606); excluded from availability
onerpc — 99% of requests were rate limited (1483 of 1498); 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 21:22:24 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
1 (1st)	drpc	0.37	4.43	2	3,582
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.39	4.63	2	3,702
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.41	4.90	3	3,306
4	tenderly	0.42	5.00	2	3,794
5	mevblocker	0.43	5.15	3	3,775
6	merkle	0.44	5.33	1	9
7	publicnode	0.45	5.46	3	3,822

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
Frankfurt	33.6 ms	120 ms	176 ms	86.0%	935	15,047
Coventry	55.4 ms	129 ms	258 ms	82.0%	887	15,462
Amsterdam	45.9 ms	114 ms	164 ms	83.4%	771	15,992
Virginia	42.8 ms	153 ms	320 ms	83.4%	732	16,037

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