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 19:30:54 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
9.0
p95 ms
17.6
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
9,526
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
93.9
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
18.9
p95 ms
36.6
Trend
+145%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
9,600
3 (3rd)
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
81.3
Status
Good
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
28.1
p95 ms
84.6
Trend
+12%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
9,526
4
Provider
NodeReal
Score
78.7
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
96.1
p95 ms
101.7
Trend
+12%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
9,365
5
Provider
dRPC
Score
76.2
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
29.5
p95 ms
120.4
Trend
−18%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
8,811
6
Provider
Blast API
Score
75.5
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
105.7
p95 ms
125.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
8,495
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
69.8
Status
Degraded
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
113.1
p95 ms
222.8
Trend
+80%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.17
Samples
1,875
8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
60.5
Status
Degraded
Availability
80.6%
p50 ms
346.9
p95 ms
1817.4
Trend
not enough history
Correct
96.5%
Behind
0.91
Samples
1,954
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
45.1
Status
Poor
Availability
24.9%
p50 ms
16.4
p95 ms
92.3
Trend
+27%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
5,755

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%	9.0	17.6	steady	100.0%	0.42	9,526
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	93.9	Excellent	100.0%	18.9	36.6	+145%	100.0%	0.44	9,600
3 (3rd)	MEV Blocker	81.3	Good	99.7%	28.1	84.6	+12%	100.0%	0.42	9,526
4	NodeReal	78.7	Good	100.0%	96.1	101.7	+12%	100.0%	0.36	9,365
5	dRPC	76.2	Good	100.0%	29.5	120.4	−18%	100.0%	0.37	8,811
6	Blast API	75.5	Good	100.0%	105.7	125.9	steady	100.0%	0.40	8,495
7	Merkle	69.8	Degraded	100.0%	113.1	222.8	+80%	100.0%	0.17	1,875
8	1RPConerpc	60.5	Degraded	80.6%	346.9	1817.4	not enough history	96.5%	0.91	1,954
9	Cloudflare	45.1	Poor	24.9%	16.4	92.3	+27%	100.0%	—	5,755

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

drpc — 2% of requests were rate limited (185 of 8809); excluded from availability
blastapi — 3% of requests were rate limited (221 of 8489); excluded from availability
merkle — 95% of requests were rate limited (1566 of 1656); excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (1622 of 1725); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 13% of requests were rate limited (714 of 5427); 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.