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

1h window · 60 minutes observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 20:53:02 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
31.1
p95 ms
43.6
Trend
−8%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
401
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
95.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
30.7
p95 ms
53.3
Trend
−83%
Correct
99.7%
Behind
0.49
Samples
398
3 (3rd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
79.2
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
87.7
p95 ms
93.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
389
4
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
74.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
44.7
p95 ms
108.9
Trend
−10%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.47
Samples
398
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
71.8
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
109.0
p95 ms
118.7
Trend
steady
Correct
99.7%
Behind
0.36
Samples
397
6
Provider
dRPC
Score
69.5
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
46.3
p95 ms
130.2
Trend
−49%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
395
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
67.5
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
110.1
p95 ms
125.2
Trend
−35%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
80
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
42.3
Status
Poor
Availability
23.3%
p50 ms
24.4
p95 ms
95.6
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
402
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
79

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%	31.1	43.6	−8%	100.0%	0.45	401
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	95.5	Excellent	99.7%	30.7	53.3	−83%	99.7%	0.49	398
3 (3rd)	NodeReal	79.2	Good	100.0%	87.7	93.0	steady	100.0%	0.37	389
4	MEV Blocker	74.4	Degraded	100.0%	44.7	108.9	−10%	100.0%	0.47	398
5	Blast API	71.8	Degraded	99.7%	109.0	118.7	steady	99.7%	0.36	397
6	dRPC	69.5	Degraded	100.0%	46.3	130.2	−49%	100.0%	0.41	395
7	Merkle	67.5	Degraded	100.0%	110.1	125.2	−35%	100.0%	—	80
8	Cloudflare	42.3	Poor	23.3%	24.4	95.6	steady	100.0%	—	402
9	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	79

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

blastapi — 3% of requests targeted methods this provider offers only on a paid plan; excluded from availability
merkle — 96% of requests were rate limited (68 of 71); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 3% of requests targeted methods this provider does not implement
onerpc — 99% of requests were rate limited (67 of 68); 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

1h 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

1h window · generated 2026-10-28 21:24:18 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	0.35	4.25	2	677
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.38	4.61	2	679
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.39	4.65	2	666
4	tenderly	0.40	4.86	2	697
5	mevblocker	0.41	4.97	2	693
6	publicnode	0.43	5.22	2	704
7	merkle	0.75	9.00	1	4

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	47.3 ms	164 ms	766 ms	83.4%	135	2,955
Amsterdam	44.9 ms	113 ms	144 ms	83.5%	138	2,950
Frankfurt	31.6 ms	112 ms	168 ms	83.4%	147	2,932
Coventry	54.5 ms	122 ms	238 ms	83.0%	147	2,902

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