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

6h window · 6.0 hours observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-28 21:15:42 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
99.5
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
5.6
p95 ms
9.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
2,090
2 (2nd)
Provider
Tenderly
Score
89.8
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
28.1
p95 ms
51.5
Trend
−12%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.40
Samples
2,128
3 (3rd)
Provider
dRPC
Score
75.9
Status
Good
Availability
99.2%
p50 ms
50.9
p95 ms
149.6
Trend
−13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
2,103
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
75.5
Status
Good
Availability
99.4%
p50 ms
40.3
p95 ms
154.9
Trend
−8%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
2,134
5
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
72.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
122.2
p95 ms
199.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
2,130
6
Provider
PublicNode
Score
71.0
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.3%
p50 ms
48.6
p95 ms
219.1
Trend
+65%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
2,151
7
Provider
Merkle
Score
69.1
Status
Degraded
Availability
87.5%
p50 ms
53.1
p95 ms
171.7
Trend
+36%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.67
Samples
421
8
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
32.5
Status
Poor
Availability
23.1%
p50 ms
23.1
p95 ms
270.7
Trend
−18%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
2,131
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
423

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	NodeReal	99.5	Excellent	100.0%	5.6	9.2	steady	100.0%	0.40	2,090
2 (2nd)	Tenderly	89.8	Good	100.0%	28.1	51.5	−12%	100.0%	0.40	2,128
3 (3rd)	dRPC	75.9	Good	99.2%	50.9	149.6	−13%	100.0%	0.36	2,103
4	Blast API	75.5	Good	99.4%	40.3	154.9	−8%	100.0%	0.43	2,134
5	MEV Blocker	72.4	Degraded	99.9%	122.2	199.9	steady	100.0%	0.43	2,130
6	PublicNode	71.0	Degraded	99.3%	48.6	219.1	+65%	100.0%	0.43	2,151
7	Merkle	69.1	Degraded	87.5%	53.1	171.7	+36%	100.0%	0.67	421
8	Cloudflare	32.5	Poor	23.1%	23.1	270.7	−18%	100.0%	—	2,131
9	1RPConerpc	0.0	Poor	0.0%	0.0	0.0	not enough history	—	—	423

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

drpc — 1 of 2103 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 5 of 2134 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
merkle — 94% of requests were rate limited (350 of 374); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 3% of requests targeted methods this provider does not implement
onerpc — 98% of requests were rate limited (363 of 371); 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

6h 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

6h window · generated 2026-10-28 21:24:14 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	0.37	4.42	2	3,603
2 (2nd)	nodereal	0.39	4.64	2	3,723
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.41	4.90	3	3,323
4	tenderly	0.42	5.01	2	3,818
5	mevblocker	0.43	5.14	3	3,795
6	merkle	0.44	5.33	1	9
7	publicnode	0.45	5.45	3	3,844

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	42.9 ms	153 ms	319 ms	83.4%	738	16,127
Amsterdam	45.9 ms	114 ms	164 ms	83.4%	774	16,086
Coventry	55.3 ms	129 ms	258 ms	82.0%	893	15,549
Frankfurt	33.5 ms	120 ms	176 ms	86.0%	940	15,137

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