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 14:43:31 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
29.3
p95 ms
48.8
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
9,617
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
95.8
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
36.1
p95 ms
64.8
Trend
+145%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
9,696
3 (3rd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
86.9
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
84.3
p95 ms
96.2
Trend
+12%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.35
Samples
9,437
4
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
84.4
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
47.5
p95 ms
106.4
Trend
+12%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
9,629
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
81.1
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
108.2
p95 ms
123.7
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
9,411
6
Provider
dRPC
Score
78.3
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
51.3
p95 ms
140.0
Trend
−18%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
8,895
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
71.5
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
112.6
p95 ms
186.3
Trend
+80%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.63
Samples
1,893
8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
58.8
Status
Degraded
Availability
77.4%
p50 ms
423.0
p95 ms
1815.3
Trend
not enough history
Correct
94.3%
Behind
0.87
Samples
1,974
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
48.5
Status
Poor
Availability
23.1%
p50 ms
22.6
p95 ms
109.5
Trend
+27%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
9,584

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%	29.3	48.8	steady	100.0%	0.43	9,617
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	95.8	Excellent	100.0%	36.1	64.8	+145%	100.0%	0.45	9,696
3 (3rd)	NodeReal	86.9	Good	100.0%	84.3	96.2	+12%	100.0%	0.35	9,437
4	MEV Blocker	84.4	Good	99.8%	47.5	106.4	+12%	100.0%	0.43	9,629
5	Blast API	81.1	Good	100.0%	108.2	123.7	steady	100.0%	0.40	9,411
6	dRPC	78.3	Good	100.0%	51.3	140.0	−18%	100.0%	0.37	8,895
7	Merkle	71.5	Degraded	100.0%	112.6	186.3	+80%	100.0%	0.63	1,893
8	1RPConerpc	58.8	Degraded	77.4%	423.0	1815.3	not enough history	94.3%	0.87	1,974
9	Cloudflare	48.5	Poor	23.1%	22.6	109.5	+27%	100.0%	—	9,584

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

blastapi — 70 of 9408 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
drpc — 2% of requests were rate limited (163 of 8892); excluded from availability
merkle — 97% of requests were rate limited (1619 of 1669); excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (1635 of 1741); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 9 of 9204 requests were rate limited; 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 20:24:20 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	4.33	3	16,135
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.36	4.35	3	14,782
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.41	4.89	3	15,421
4	merkle	0.42	5.00	2	48
5	tenderly	0.43	5.11	3	16,541
6	mevblocker	0.43	5.15	3	16,488
7	publicnode	0.45	5.44	3	16,743
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	28.1 ms	129 ms	245 ms	83.4%	3,243	69,775
Coventry	50.1 ms	120 ms	260 ms	82.8%	3,549	68,794
Amsterdam	40.8 ms	113 ms	167 ms	84.3%	3,638	68,107
Frankfurt	29.1 ms	115 ms	164 ms	86.1%	4,262	64,682

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