Etherscan vs MetaMask

Name: Etherscan vs MetaMask OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

MetaMask leads on the only live benchmark. MetaMask wins on Most accurate gas oracle, live gap vs realized priority fee (0.011 gwei vs 0.018 gwei).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:29:51 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

Etherscan

Most-visited Ethereum gas tracker on the web, operated by Etherscan. The v2 gastracker API exposes Safe / Propose / Fast tiers; the legacy single-price shape predates EIP-1559's per-tier priority-fee model.

MetaMask

MetaMask is the largest self-custody EVM wallet; its Hyperliquid integration routes perps orders through a registered builder code so users can trade HL from within the wallet.

Side by side measurements

Most accurate gas oracle, live gap vs realized priority fee

RPCs

Provider	Gap vs realized	APL median (τ=0.9)
Etherscan	0.018 gwei	0.140 gwei
MetaMask	0.011 gwei	0.179 gwei

Lower gap is NOT the same as "best oracle". Inclusion-confidence oracles (Etherscan) over-predict by design to guarantee inclusion; percentile trackers (PublicNode, Owlracle) hug the realized number by construction. The table therefore ranks on the p99 gap (typical p50 gaps are micro-gwei noise) and pairs it with the covered column: share of time the prediction sat at or above the realized p50, the inclusion-side risk a gap alone cannot show.

Frequently asked questions

Etherscan vs MetaMask: which one is better?

Etherscan and MetaMask are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. MetaMask leads on Most accurate gas oracle, live gap vs realized priority fee. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, Etherscan or MetaMask?

On the Most accurate gas oracle, live gap vs realized priority fee benchmark, MetaMask leads at 0.011 gwei versus Etherscan at 0.018 gwei. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Etherscan vs MetaMask 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.