beaverbuild vs Quasar

Name: beaverbuild vs Quasar OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quasar leads on the only live benchmark. Quasar wins on Ethereum block builder market share (21.5% vs 0.056%).

Read methodology Last measured Sun, 30 Aug 2026 20:25:34 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

beaverbuild

Pseudonymous Ethereum block builder that dominated block building through 2023-2024 alongside rsync. Labels its blocks `beaverbuild.org` in extraData; no legal entity is publicly identified.

Quasar

Ethereum block builder self-described as neutral and non-censoring, second-largest by extraData share. The operating entity is not publicly named; identity rests on the `quasar` extraData self-label and the quasarbuilder.eth fee recipient.

Side by side measurements

Ethereum block builder market share

Trading

beaverbuild

Trails

0.056 %

rank: #9
samples: 4provisional

Quasar

Leads

21.5 %

p99: 21.5%
rank: #2
samples: 1,543

Attribution relies on the extraData tag each builder voluntarily stamps. A builder can change or strip its tag; unrecognized tags land in Other and raw strings are logged so the table grows. The Vanilla row (locally built) could be marginally overstated if a builder uses a client-default tag; the relay cross-check surfaces this. High share is a centralization datapoint, not a quality ranking.

Frequently asked questions

beaverbuild vs Quasar: which one is better?

beaverbuild and Quasar are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Quasar leads on Ethereum block builder market share. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is more reliable, beaverbuild or Quasar?

On the Ethereum block builder market share benchmark, Quasar leads at 21.5% versus beaverbuild at 0.056% (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the beaverbuild vs Quasar comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing — panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.