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

30d window · 30.0 days observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 21:23:16 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
NodeReal
Score
99.6
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
5.6
p95 ms
9.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
285,711
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
91.9
Status
Excellent
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
16.6
p95 ms
48.7
Trend
+24%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.45
Samples
292,600
3 (3rd)
Provider
Tenderly
Score
91.3
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
27.0
p95 ms
51.5
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
290,457
4
Provider
Merkle
Score
90.4
Status
Excellent
Availability
99.1%
p50 ms
24.2
p95 ms
54.0
Trend
+9%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.46
Samples
57,390
5
Provider
Blast API
Score
89.6
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
22.1
p95 ms
59.7
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
288,042
6
Provider
dRPC
Score
86.8
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
35.7
p95 ms
77.0
Trend
+67%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
285,627
7
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
77.5
Status
Good
Availability
99.8%
p50 ms
113.4
p95 ms
172.7
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.42
Samples
290,039
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
37.6
Status
Poor
Availability
23.1%
p50 ms
15.0
p95 ms
235.6
Trend
+22%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
287,709
9
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
33.0
Status
Poor
Availability
11.2%
p50 ms
164.4
p95 ms
4572.0
Trend
−51%
Correct
97.8%
Behind
0.89
Samples
75,105

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	NodeReal	99.6	Excellent	100.0%	5.6	9.2	steady	100.0%	0.36	285,711
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	91.9	Excellent	99.9%	16.6	48.7	+24%	100.0%	0.45	292,600
3 (3rd)	Tenderly	91.3	Excellent	100.0%	27.0	51.5	steady	100.0%	0.42	290,457
4	Merkle	90.4	Excellent	99.1%	24.2	54.0	+9%	100.0%	0.46	57,390
5	Blast API	89.6	Good	99.9%	22.1	59.7	steady	100.0%	0.41	288,042
6	dRPC	86.8	Good	99.9%	35.7	77.0	+67%	100.0%	0.36	285,627
7	MEV Blocker	77.5	Good	99.8%	113.4	172.7	steady	100.0%	0.42	290,039
8	Cloudflare	37.6	Poor	23.1%	15.0	235.6	+22%	100.0%	—	287,709
9	1RPConerpc	33.0	Poor	11.2%	164.4	4572.0	−51%	97.8%	0.89	75,105

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

nodereal — 4 of 285711 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
merkle — 95% of requests were rate limited (48202 of 50668); excluded from availability
blastapi — 924 of 288035 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
drpc — 225 of 285626 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
mevblocker — 3 of 290039 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
cloudflare — 548 of 276273 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
onerpc — 67% of requests were rate limited (45164 of 67621); 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

30d 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

30d window · generated 2026-10-28 21:22:40 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	0.35	4.22	4	493,862
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.39	4.69	4	483,777
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.82	24	490,889
4	mevblocker	0.42	5.02	4	505,696
5	publicnode	0.45	5.42	5	512,760
6	tenderly	0.46	5.47	4	507,128
7	merkle	0.48	5.73	2	1,721
8	onerpc	0.89	10.71	9	4,480

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	26.0 ms	125 ms	207 ms	83.1%	95,068	2,152,654
Coventry	46.1 ms	110 ms	181 ms	82.9%	99,441	2,148,185
Amsterdam	36.7 ms	115 ms	158 ms	82.8%	99,718	2,147,894
Frankfurt	27.0 ms	113 ms	160 ms	83.1%	104,231	2,128,952

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