Blockscout vs TonAPI

Name: Blockscout vs TonAPI 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 (51.9% vs 35.7%).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 03:14:26 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.

TonAPI

REST API for the Gram (TON) blockchain. Returns account metadata, known entity names, and address book labels for Gram wallets.

Side by side measurements

Best wallet labeling API provider

Aggregators

Blockscout

Leads

51.9 %

p99: 51.9%
rank: #3
samples: 4,027

TonAPI

Trails

35.7 %

p99: 35.7%
rank: #7
samples: 677

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 TonAPI: which one is better?

Blockscout and TonAPI 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 TonAPI?

On the Best wallet labeling API provider benchmark, Blockscout leads at 51.9% versus TonAPI at 35.7%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Blockscout vs TonAPI 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.