Network

Solana

SOL · 420 ms block time · 3 providers, 5 endpoints

Just tell meWhich Solana 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.

Who is producing blocks

leader schedule · epoch 1052

Solana fixes its leader schedule for a whole epoch before the epoch begins and publishes it, so who produces each of the next 432,000 slots is a known fact rather than a forecast. No other chain measured here publishes one. The map beside it marks where the validator taking its turn was last observed on the network.

Block production

epoch 1052 · 35.4% through

slot 153,041 of 432,000 in this epoch · absolute 454,617,041

Leading now

2DTXh3ruMU2SeWanqr4yeg5GR47V99Jq3wUdStQfda3V

1,005,815.80 SOL staked

Last observed

—

projected since

Next up

+0.4s2DTXh3ruMU2SeWanqr4yeg5GR47V99Jq3wUdStQfda3V2 slots1,005,815.80 SOL
+1.2s6aDs9tUm2gErcPn2c1TZnp5cu2bQV9BzyuwW4baWQYd44 slots1,461,715.45 SOL
+2.8sJD549HsbJHeEKKUrKgg4Fj2iyv2RGjsV7NTZjZUrHybB4 slots6,691,194.46 SOL
+4.4s9eGrDohdNTAo61DRHyfMuqKWXqYnA3i254Wiszxe8FoY4 slots6,812,500.09 SOL
+6.0sAw5wEMXhbygFLR7jHtHpih8QvxVBGAMTqsQ2SjWPk1ex4 slots2,499,999.93 SOL

The leader schedule and the observed slot are measured; the current slot is projected forward from the last sample at the chain's target slot time. Solana does not produce slots on a metronome, so treat the projection as an estimate and observed_at as the fact.

Producing from

19,801 located · 50 countries

Current leader

2DTXh3ruMU2SeWanqr4yeg5GR47V99Jq3wUdStQfda3V

Shinagawa, JP · AS395201 Allnodes Inc

Solana slots advance roughly every 400ms, with the observed rate slightly slower because of skipped slots. Commitment levels (processed, confirmed, finalized) mean two healthy providers can legitimately report different heads, so every head is observed at a fixed commitment and compared against the cohort rather than against any single provider.

Provider ranking

1h window · 60 minutes observed · 4 vantage points · generated 2026-10-08 16:36:44 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
PublicNode
Score
88.5
Status
Good
Availability
98.5%
p50 ms
20.9
p95 ms
43.3
Trend
steady
Correct
98.5%
Behind
12.02
Samples
456
2 (2nd)
Provider
Solana Foundation
Score
77.9
Status
Good
Availability
100.0%
p50 ms
12.7
p95 ms
56.9
Trend
−26%
Correct
100.0%
Behind
0.00
Samples
346
3 (3rd)
Provider
Tatum
Score
61.5
Status
Degraded
Availability
99.0%
p50 ms
23.7
p95 ms
62.7
Trend
−15%
Correct
99.0%
Behind
12.49
Samples
127

Provider ranking by composite score
#	Provider	Score	Status	Availability	p50 ms	p95 ms	Trend	Correct	Behind	Samples
1 (1st)	PublicNode	88.5	Good	98.5%	20.9	43.3	steady	98.5%	12.02	456
2 (2nd)	Solana Foundation	77.9	Good	100.0%	12.7	56.9	−26%	100.0%	0.00	346
3 (3rd)	Tatum	61.5	Degraded	99.0%	23.7	62.7	−15%	99.0%	12.49	127

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

publicnode — score capped: 98% of checked responses were correct, below the 99% threshold
solana-foundation — 1% of requests targeted methods this provider does not implement
tatum — 2% of requests were rate limited (3 of 121); excluded from availability

3 providers scored against each other. A cohort this small makes every rank a comparison between very few alternatives: first of 3 is a weaker claim than the same score on a crowded chain, and the score is relative to whoever is here.

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

1h window · top 3 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

1h window · generated 2026-10-08 17:53:06 UTC · cohort of 3

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 slots behind	≈ seconds	Worst slots	Compared
1 (1st)	solana-foundation	0.03	0.01	11	670
2 (2nd)	tatum	7.32	3.07	98	181
3 (3rd)	publicnode	9.43	3.96	122	982

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 Solana 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.

Solana broken out by region
Region	Median	p95	p99	Success	Rate limited	Samples
Frankfurt	18.6 ms	71.5 ms	161 ms	94.5%	22	965
Amsterdam	28.3 ms	64.4 ms	141 ms	95.5%	13	949
Coventry	36.1 ms	85.6 ms	189 ms	95.7%	5	938
Virginia	19.6 ms	50.6 ms	106 ms	96.3%	4	918

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