Hyperliquid RPC Provider Benchmark: Latency & Uptime (September 2026)

By Chainstack Labs Research Team · Research Note No. 046 · September 2026 edition · Published Sep 24, 2026 · Last updated Sep 24, 2026 · Node Infrastructure

Data source: live Grafana compare dashboards, refreshed every 3 minutes, 7-day rolling window across DE, US, and JP.

---

Abstract

Hyperliquid is a latency-sensitive perpetuals venue by design, which makes RPC provider selection a more direct input to trading performance than on most chains — a slow endpoint is not just an integration inconvenience, it is a quoting and liquidation-risk problem. This report ranks four providers — Chainstack, Alchemy, Quicknode, and dRPC — on Hyperliquid RPC latency and uptime, using a composite score that weights response time against success rate independently in three regions (Frankfurt, US, Tokyo) and then averages the result, so a provider cannot post a strong global number by being fast in one region while degraded in another. Chainstack ranks first with a score of 0.020, the lowest in any report in this series to date, backed by 100.00% measured availability and a 23ms global P95. The next three providers are further apart from each other than any of them is close to Chainstack: Quicknode’s Tokyo P95 (124ms) and dRPC’s Tokyo P95 (203ms) both show the same regional pattern seen elsewhere in this series — a provider that looks reasonable globally but degrades sharply in the Asia-Pacific region. For how RPC method choice compounds regional latency, see our companion report, RPC Method Latency Across Chains.

Keywords: Hyperliquid RPC provider, Hyperliquid RPC latency, RPC benchmark, regional latency, availability, composite scoring, tail latency, provider comparison

---

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Methodology and scoring
3. Providers and regions
4. Results
5. Regional variance and outliers
6. Interpretation notes and known confounders
7. Conclusion
8. Appendix A: measurement parameters

---

1. Introduction

Most chains treat RPC latency as an integration-quality concern: slower responses mean a worse user experience, but rarely a directly priced risk. Hyperliquid is different — it is a perpetuals exchange built around fast, on-chain order matching, where a bot or market maker reading stale state through a slow RPC endpoint is exposed to quoting risk and, in a fast-moving market, liquidation risk. That makes the regional breakdown in this report more than an academic distinction: a market maker running infrastructure in Tokyo needs the Tokyo column, not the global average, to size that risk correctly. This report ranks four Hyperliquid RPC providers — Chainstack, Alchemy, Quicknode, and dRPC — on exactly that basis.

Hyperliquid is also newer than Ethereum and less contested than Arc among RPC vendors, which shows up in this round as the widest score spread of any report in this series: the best and worst composite scores are nearly 4x apart, compared to a narrower band on more mature chains.

2. Methodology and scoring

Each provider is evaluated on speed (response time) and reliability (success rate) independently in each monitored region, then combined as:

Score = ResponseTime / SuccessRate³, averaged across regions. Lower is better.

Cubing the success-rate term makes reliability the dominant factor once availability drops meaningfully below 100% — a provider that is fast but flaky is penalized far more than the raw percentage-point gap in its availability figure would suggest. This is visible directly in this round’s results: Quicknode’s 99.69% availability, the lowest in the set, is enough on its own to push its score above Alchemy’s despite a broadly comparable latency profile in two of three regions. Per-method p95 latencies are combined with equal weights to produce the response-time term, and regional scores are averaged arithmetically rather than weighted by traffic share, so a slow region cannot be diluted by two fast ones. Scores are read directly from the underlying Grafana compare dashboards, which update every 3 minutes, rather than recomputed downstream from a static export.

3. Providers and regions

Four providers offering public Hyperliquid RPC endpoints were included: Chainstack, Alchemy, Quicknode, and dRPC. Each was measured concurrently from three regions — Frankfurt (DE), a US test node, and Tokyo (JP) — against the same Hyperliquid RPC methods, over a rolling 7-day window refreshed every 3 minutes. Tokyo replaces the Singapore region used in this series’ Arc and Ethereum editions, reflecting where Hyperliquid’s own monitored infrastructure sits in the Asia-Pacific region. All figures reflect each provider’s standard shared endpoint. Chainstack’s Hyperliquid node deployment options include dedicated tiers that were out of scope for this round.

4. Results

Table 1. Composite score, availability, and global percentile latency by provider, 7-day window. Chainstack’s 0.020 score is driven by both the lowest latency and the only 100.00% availability in the set; Quicknode’s availability (99.69%) is the weakest reliability figure despite mid-pack latency.

Provider	Score	Availability	P50	P95	P99
Chainstack	0.020	100.00%	10ms	23ms	86ms
Alchemy	0.053	99.99%	20ms	56ms	126ms
Quicknode	0.066	99.69%	55ms	76ms	106ms
dRPC	0.074	99.99%	30ms	112ms	208ms

Table 2. P95 latency by region, milliseconds. Chainstack and Quicknode both post a 19ms DE figure, but diverge sharply by Tokyo (20ms vs. 124ms); dRPC shows the same DE-to-Tokyo degradation pattern at a larger scale.

Provider	DE	US	JP
Chainstack	19ms	31ms	20ms
Alchemy	31ms	81ms	56ms
Quicknode	19ms	84ms	124ms
dRPC	59ms	74ms	203ms

5. Regional variance and outliers

Table 2 shows a consistent pattern across three of the four providers: DE is the strongest region, Tokyo is the weakest, and the gap between them is what separates the field. Quicknode is the clearest case — its 19ms DE P95 ties Chainstack for the best single-region figure in this report, but its 124ms Tokyo P95 is over 6x worse, and combined with its below-99.7% availability, that regional weakness is what pushes its composite score above Alchemy’s despite a faster median. dRPC follows the same DE-to-Tokyo shape at a uniformly larger scale (59ms to 203ms), consistent with a footprint that, like the patterns seen for other chains in this series, is thinner in Asia-Pacific than in Europe or North America.

Chainstack is the only provider in this round with a Tokyo figure (20ms) close to its DE figure (19ms), and its US result (31ms) — while its own weakest region — stays far below any other provider’s weakest region. Alchemy sits in between: a 31ms DE P95 and 56ms Tokyo P95 show the same directional pattern as Quicknode and dRPC, just compressed to a narrower range, which is consistent with its second-place composite score.

6. Interpretation notes and known confounders

Shared-endpoint tier only. All figures reflect each provider’s standard shared RPC endpoint. A dedicated node placed directly in Tokyo would be the direct mitigation for the DE-to-Tokyo gap that shows up across three of the four providers in this round, and this comparison does not test whether that gap closes on a paid dedicated tier.

Hyperliquid is a young, fast-moving chain. Its validator set, RPC tooling, and provider ecosystem are less mature than Ethereum’s, which is consistent with this round showing the widest score spread (0.020 to 0.074, a 3.7x range) of any report in this series so far. Provider rankings here should be expected to move faster between editions than on a more established chain.

Method mix is not disclosed. The P95 figures combine multiple RPC methods with equal weights. As our RPC Method Latency Across Chains benchmark shows for other chains, method choice can move latency by an order of magnitude on its own; a trading workload concentrated in order-book or fill-status queries may see different relative rankings than this blended figure suggests.

Single measurement window. Figures reflect one rolling 7-day window. Given Hyperliquid’s latency sensitivity, a team making an infrastructure decision based on this report should treat the Tokyo-region gap as directionally reliable but revisit it against the next edition before locking in a long-term commitment.

7. Conclusion

On Hyperliquid, the gap between providers is wider and more regionally concentrated than on either Arc or Ethereum in this series: Chainstack’s 100.00% availability and flat regional profile produce the lowest score recorded so far, while the other three providers each show a measurable DE-to-Tokyo degradation that a global average would understate. For a latency-sensitive venue like Hyperliquid, the Tokyo column in Table 2 is not a secondary detail — for any team with Asia-Pacific-facing trading infrastructure, it is arguably the single most decision-relevant number in this report. Teams choosing an RPC provider for Hyperliquid should weight regional consistency, not just the global score, given how directly RPC latency here translates into quoting and execution risk.

Appendix A: measurement parameters

Parameter	Value
Chain	Hyperliquid
Providers	Chainstack, Alchemy, Quicknode, dRPC (shared endpoint tier)
Regions	DE (Frankfurt), US, JP (Tokyo)
Measurement window	Rolling 7 days, refreshed every 3 minutes
Score formula	ResponseTime / SuccessRate³, averaged across regions
Latency basis	Per-method P95, equal-weighted
Source	Live Grafana compare dashboards