Blockscout vs XRPScan

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

XRPScan leads on the only live benchmark. XRPScan wins on Best wallet labeling API provider (79.8% vs 48.7%).

Read methodology Last measured Fri, 21 Aug 2026 20:07:27 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.

XRPScan

Block explorer for the XRP Ledger. Offers a public REST API with account info and known wallet names via its names endpoint.

Side by side measurements

Best wallet labeling API provider

Aggregators

Blockscout

Trails

48.7 %

p99: 48.7%
rank: #4
samples: 4,027

XRPScan

Leads

79.8 %

p99: 79.8%
rank: #2
samples: 486

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 XRPScan: which one is better?

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

Which is more reliable, Blockscout or XRPScan?

On the Best wallet labeling API provider benchmark, XRPScan leads at 79.8% versus Blockscout at 48.7%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Blockscout vs XRPScan 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.