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 21:00:36 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
9.5
p95 ms
18.4
Trend
−35%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
396
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
93.3
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
19.9
p95 ms
36.3
Trend
−48%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
404
3 (3rd)
Provider
NodeReal
Score
76.1
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
96.1
p95 ms
105.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
394
4
Provider
dRPC
Score
74.1
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
34.2
p95 ms
120.1
Trend
+84%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.39
Samples
394
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
73.9
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
106.7
p95 ms
121.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.39
Samples
396
6
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
73.8
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.3%
p50 ms
31.6
p95 ms
119.8
Trend
+29%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
404
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
66.7
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
120.2
p95 ms
175.0
Trend
+18%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
80
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
36.0
Status
Poor
Availability
23.1%
p50 ms
19.1
p95 ms
130.8
Trend
+88%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
400
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
80

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%	9.5	18.4	−35%	100.0%	0.43	396
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	93.3	Excellent	100.0%	19.9	36.3	−48%	100.0%	0.41	404
3 (3rd)	NodeReal	76.1	Good	100.0%	96.1	105.5	steady	100.0%	0.41	394
4	dRPC	74.1	Degraded	100.0%	34.2	120.1	+84%	100.0%	0.39	394
5	Blast API	73.9	Degraded	100.0%	106.7	121.9	steady	100.0%	0.39	396
6	MEV Blocker	73.8	Degraded	99.3%	31.6	119.8	+29%	100.0%	0.44	404
7	Merkle	66.7	Degraded	100.0%	120.2	175.0	+18%	100.0%	—	80
8	Cloudflare	36.0	Poor	23.1%	19.1	130.8	+88%	100.0%	—	400
9	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	80

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

drpc — 1 of 394 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 4% of requests were rate limited (14 of 396); excluded from availability
merkle — 93% of requests were rate limited (65 of 70); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 3% of requests targeted methods this provider does not implement
onerpc — 97% of requests were rate limited (68 of 70); 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 21:23:04 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	0.36	4.26	2	676
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.38	4.57	2	677
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.38	4.61	2	666
4	tenderly	0.40	4.83	2	698
5	mevblocker	0.42	4.98	2	691
6	publicnode	0.43	5.20	2	702
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	46.9 ms	164 ms	766 ms	83.5%	135	2,947
Amsterdam	45.0 ms	113 ms	144 ms	83.4%	139	2,935
Frankfurt	31.5 ms	112 ms	168 ms	83.2%	148	2,929
Coventry	54.7 ms	122 ms	238 ms	83.1%	149	2,909

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