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

7d window · 7.0 days observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 17:25:26 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
8.9
p95 ms
16.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
65,280
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
93.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
16.6
p95 ms
36.8
Trend
+13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
65,760
3 (3rd)
Provider
dRPC
Score
81.4
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
26.6
p95 ms
82.7
Trend
+61%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.37
Samples
63,393
4
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
80.7
Status
Good
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
26.7
p95 ms
85.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
65,230
5
Provider
NodeReal
Score
78.3
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
96.4
p95 ms
102.1
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.35
Samples
64,105
6
Provider
Blast API
Score
75.5
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
106.3
p95 ms
122.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
62,639
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
69.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
114.0
p95 ms
217.2
Trend
+10%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
12,879
8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
61.7
Status
Degraded
Availability
82.8%
p50 ms
231.2
p95 ms
2640.6
Trend
steady
Correct
97.7%
Behind
0.83
Samples
13,419
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
45.9
Status
Poor
Availability
24.0%
p50 ms
14.3
p95 ms
83.8
Trend
+14%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
53,319

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%	8.9	16.9	steady	100.0%	0.44	65,280
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	93.5	Excellent	100.0%	16.6	36.8	+13%	100.0%	0.45	65,760
3 (3rd)	dRPC	81.4	Good	100.0%	26.6	82.7	+61%	100.0%	0.37	63,393
4	MEV Blocker	80.7	Good	99.7%	26.7	85.9	steady	100.0%	0.42	65,230
5	NodeReal	78.3	Good	100.0%	96.4	102.1	steady	100.0%	0.35	64,105
6	Blast API	75.5	Good	100.0%	106.3	122.5	steady	100.0%	0.40	62,639
7	Merkle	69.4	Degraded	99.8%	114.0	217.2	+10%	100.0%	0.44	12,879
8	1RPConerpc	61.7	Degraded	82.8%	231.2	2640.6	steady	97.7%	0.83	13,419
9	Cloudflare	45.9	Poor	24.0%	14.3	83.8	+14%	100.0%	—	53,319

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

drpc — 1% of requests were rate limited (838 of 63390); excluded from availability
blastapi — 1% of requests were rate limited (908 of 62626); excluded from availability
merkle — 96% of requests were rate limited (10869 of 11370); excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (11166 of 11840); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 5% of requests were rate limited (2499 of 50788); 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

7d 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

7d window · generated 2026-10-28 21:22:24 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	4.30	3	113,824
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.37	4.41	4	111,477
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.86	4	110,536
4	mevblocker	0.42	5.09	3	116,241
5	tenderly	0.43	5.20	3	116,754
6	publicnode	0.45	5.41	4	118,085
7	merkle	0.47	5.59	2	339
8	onerpc	0.86	10.30	4	916

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	26.6 ms	130 ms	214 ms	83.6%	23,067	492,962
Coventry	48.8 ms	112 ms	219 ms	83.2%	24,459	489,459
Amsterdam	38.8 ms	114 ms	156 ms	83.4%	24,314	489,013
Frankfurt	27.4 ms	113 ms	154 ms	84.7%	26,912	477,290

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