Blockscout vs OLI

Name: Blockscout vs OLI OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Blockscout leads on the only live benchmark. Blockscout wins on Best wallet labeling API provider (51.3% vs 50.3%).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 02:14:56 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

Blockscout

Open-source multi-chain EVM block explorer. Exposes address tags and public labels through its REST and JSON-RPC APIs.

OLI

Open Labels Initiative, a community standard and shared dataset for EVM address labels. Distributes labels via GitHub and a public API.

Side by side measurements

Best wallet labeling API provider

Aggregators

Blockscout

Leads

51.3 %

p99: 51.3%
rank: #3
samples: 4,030

OLI

Trails

50.3 %

p99: 50.3%
rank: #4
samples: 5,579

Per chain

Chain	Blockscout	OLI
Ethereum	37.6%	77.8%
Base	48.5%	41.3%
Polygon	64.8%	41.2%
Optimism	64.6%	53.0%

Coverage means the provider returned a non-empty label for the probed address, it says nothing about label quality or correctness. Read the EOA vs contract split before concluding: a provider can look strong overall while only labeling contracts (verified-source names) and missing every wallet. The Success column is fetch reliability (share of API calls that did not error), not labeling accuracy.

Frequently asked questions

Blockscout vs OLI: which one is better?

Blockscout and OLI are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Blockscout leads on Best wallet labeling API provider. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is more reliable, Blockscout or OLI?

On the Best wallet labeling API provider benchmark, Blockscout leads at 51.3% versus OLI at 50.3%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Blockscout vs OLI 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.