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

30d window · 30.0 days observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 22:03:41 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
99.4
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
25.7
p95 ms
42.4
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.46
Samples
1,163,363
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
96.4
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
24.2
p95 ms
54.8
Trend
+24%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
1,172,022
3 (3rd)
Provider
dRPC
Score
87.0
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
35.9
p95 ms
86.7
Trend
+67%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.39
Samples
1,134,967
4
Provider
NodeReal
Score
84.2
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
87.2
p95 ms
99.4
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.35
Samples
1,143,373
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
79.7
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
104.0
p95 ms
123.1
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
1,140,767
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
78.1
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
43.8
p95 ms
132.8
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
1,162,807
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
69.6
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.5%
p50 ms
107.8
p95 ms
198.1
Trend
+7%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.48
Samples
229,597
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
48.0
Status
Poor
Availability
23.2%
p50 ms
16.4
p95 ms
103.1
Trend
+22%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
1,138,937
9
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
33.0
Status
Poor
Availability
11.4%
p50 ms
224.6
p95 ms
4712.5
Trend
−51%
Correct
97.7%
Behind
0.89
Samples
299,979

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	Tenderly	99.4	Excellent	100.0%	25.7	42.4	steady	100.0%	0.46	1,163,363
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	96.4	Excellent	100.0%	24.2	54.8	+24%	100.0%	0.45	1,172,022
3 (3rd)	dRPC	87.0	Good	100.0%	35.9	86.7	+67%	100.0%	0.39	1,134,967
4	NodeReal	84.2	Good	99.9%	87.2	99.4	steady	100.0%	0.35	1,143,373
5	Blast API	79.7	Good	100.0%	104.0	123.1	steady	100.0%	0.40	1,140,767
6	MEV Blocker	78.1	Good	99.8%	43.8	132.8	steady	100.0%	0.42	1,162,807
7	Merkle	69.6	Degraded	99.5%	107.8	198.1	+7%	100.0%	0.48	229,597
8	Cloudflare	48.0	Poor	23.2%	16.4	103.1	+22%	100.0%	—	1,138,937
9	1RPConerpc	33.0	Poor	11.4%	224.6	4712.5	−51%	97.7%	0.89	299,979

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

drpc — 1% of requests were rate limited (12752 of 1134913); excluded from availability
nodereal — 4 of 1143362 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 6752 of 1140601 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
mevblocker — 5 of 1162807 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
merkle — 95% of requests were rate limited (192904 of 202700); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 5057 of 1093187 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
onerpc — 67% of requests were rate limited (181374 of 269997); 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

30d 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

30d window · generated 2026-10-28 22:03:41 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	0.35	4.22	4	494,330
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.39	4.69	4	484,252
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.82	24	491,318
4	mevblocker	0.42	5.02	4	506,186
5	publicnode	0.45	5.42	5	513,249
6	tenderly	0.46	5.47	4	507,612
7	merkle	0.48	5.74	2	1,723
8	onerpc	0.89	10.71	9	4,480

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
Coventry	46.1 ms	110 ms	181 ms	82.9%	99,545	2,150,211
Amsterdam	36.7 ms	115 ms	158 ms	82.8%	99,812	2,149,931
Frankfurt	27.0 ms	113 ms	160 ms	83.1%	104,329	2,130,969
Virginia	26.0 ms	125 ms	207 ms	83.1%	95,162	2,154,701

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