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 16:14:09 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
5.7
p95 ms
9.9
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
63,793
2 (2nd)
Provider
PublicNode
Score
93.0
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
18.5
p95 ms
42.0
Trend
+13%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.44
Samples
65,318
3 (3rd)
Provider
Tenderly
Score
91.1
Status
Excellent
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
26.7
p95 ms
50.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
64,829
4
Provider
Blast API
Score
90.0
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
21.4
p95 ms
56.0
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.41
Samples
64,698
5
Provider
Merkle
Score
89.2
Status
Good
Availability
98.4%
p50 ms
27.4
p95 ms
56.1
Trend
+10%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.49
Samples
12,852
6
Provider
dRPC
Score
86.5
Status
Good
Availability
99.9%
p50 ms
38.1
p95 ms
78.0
Trend
+61%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.36
Samples
63,738
7
Provider
MEV Blocker
Score
77.2
Status
Good
Availability
99.7%
p50 ms
115.2
p95 ms
185.2
Trend
steady
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.43
Samples
64,757
8
Provider
1RPConerpc
Score
58.4
Status
Degraded
Availability
74.5%
p50 ms
178.3
p95 ms
2360.2
Trend
steady
Correct
97.8%
Behind
0.83
Samples
13,373
9
Provider
Cloudflare
Score
37.7
Status
Poor
Availability
23.2%
p50 ms
16.3
p95 ms
250.7
Trend
+14%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
—
Samples
64,270

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%	5.7	9.9	steady	100.0%	0.36	63,793
2 (2nd)	PublicNode	93.0	Excellent	100.0%	18.5	42.0	+13%	100.0%	0.44	65,318
3 (3rd)	Tenderly	91.1	Excellent	100.0%	26.7	50.2	steady	100.0%	0.43	64,829
4	Blast API	90.0	Good	100.0%	21.4	56.0	steady	100.0%	0.41	64,698
5	Merkle	89.2	Good	98.4%	27.4	56.1	+10%	100.0%	0.49	12,852
6	dRPC	86.5	Good	99.9%	38.1	78.0	+61%	100.0%	0.36	63,738
7	MEV Blocker	77.2	Good	99.7%	115.2	185.2	steady	100.0%	0.43	64,757
8	1RPConerpc	58.4	Degraded	74.5%	178.3	2360.2	steady	97.8%	0.83	13,373
9	Cloudflare	37.7	Poor	23.2%	16.3	250.7	+14%	100.0%	—	64,270

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

nodereal — 4 of 63793 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
blastapi — 174 of 64697 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
merkle — 96% of requests were rate limited (10844 of 11349); excluded from availability
drpc — 151 of 63738 requests were rate limited; excluded from availability
onerpc — 94% of requests were rate limited (11085 of 11797); excluded from availability
cloudflare — 110 of 61713 requests were rate limited; 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 21:23:04 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	113,833
2 (2nd)	drpc	0.37	4.41	4	111,485
3 (3rd)	blastapi	0.40	4.86	4	110,543
4	mevblocker	0.42	5.09	3	116,248
5	tenderly	0.43	5.20	3	116,766
6	publicnode	0.45	5.41	4	118,094
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%	23,069	492,994
Coventry	48.8 ms	112 ms	219 ms	83.2%	24,461	489,491
Amsterdam	38.8 ms	114 ms	156 ms	83.4%	24,316	489,051
Frankfurt	27.4 ms	113 ms	154 ms	84.7%	26,914	477,322

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