OpenChainBench

Chainstack vs RouteMesh

Chainstack leads on all 7 live benchmarks. Chainstack wins on Ethereum RPC endpoints (71 ms vs 120 ms), Arbitrum RPC endpoints (69 ms vs 196 ms), Base RPC endpoints (32 ms vs 189 ms), BNB Chain RPC endpoints (63 ms vs 126 ms). Data as of 2026-10-29 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h7 shared benchmarks
Chainstack logo
Chainstack

Managed blockchain node platform. Deploys dedicated Global Nodes per chain with keyed HTTPS/WSS endpoints; free plan includes one node and 3M requests per month.

RO
RouteMesh

Side by side measurements

Frequently asked questions

Chainstack vs RouteMesh: which one is better?

Chainstack and RouteMesh are compared on 7 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Chainstack leads on Ethereum RPC endpoints. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is faster, Chainstack or RouteMesh?

On the Ethereum RPC endpoints benchmark, Chainstack leads at 71 ms versus RouteMesh at 120 ms. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Chainstack vs RouteMesh 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.

Live data refreshes via ISR within 60 seconds of a new run. Sources are the same Prometheus queries surfaced on the parent benchmark pages.