RPC provider performance on Hyperliquid: a regional latency and reliability benchmark (October 2026)

By Chainstack Labs Research Team · Research Note No. 051 · October 2026 edition · Published Oct 8, 2026 · Last updated Oct 8, 2026 · Node infrastructure

Data source: Chainstack Compare, backed by a public Grafana dashboard. Seven-day rolling window across DE, US, and JP, snapshot captured Oct 8, 2026.

Disclosure. Chainstack operates the monitoring service, the dashboard, and the scoring formula behind this report, and Chainstack is one of the four providers ranked. Section 2 documents the pipeline so readers can check the work, and the collection code is open source.

---

Abstract

Hyperliquid is a latency-sensitive perpetuals venue, so RPC latency feeds directly into quoting and execution decisions. This report ranks Chainstack, Quicknode, Alchemy, and dRPC on Hyperliquid RPC latency and uptime over a 7-day window ending Oct 8, 2026, using the scoring method behind Chainstack Compare: response time and success rate are combined per region, and the three regions (DE, US, and JP) are averaged equally. Chainstack ranks first by the widest margin of the four chains in this series.

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

Key findings

• Chainstack ranks first with a score of 0.019, the lowest in this report series. Second place (Alchemy, 0.036) scores 1.9 times higher.
• Chainstack posts the lowest value in every percentile column and in all three regions: P50 10 ms, P95 22 ms, P99 82 ms; DE 18 ms, US 31 ms, JP 18 ms.
• Its availability is the lowest in the set. 99.74% against 100.00% for Alchemy and dRPC and 99.98% for Quicknode, down from 100.00% in September. Under the formula this costs about 0.8% of score and does not change the ranking.
• JP is the weakest region for all three competitors. Their P95 there is 2.8 (Alchemy), 7.1 (Quicknode), and 10.2 (dRPC) times Chainstack’s.
• Quicknode’s JP weakness persisted (124 ms in September, 128 ms in October) while its availability recovered from 99.69% to 99.98%.

---

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Methodology and scoring
3. Providers and regions
4. Results
5. Regional variance and outliers
6. Changes since September
7. Interpretation notes and known confounders
8. Conclusion
9. Frequently asked questions
10. Appendix A: measurement parameters

---

1. Introduction

On most chains, RPC latency is an integration-quality concern: slower responses mean a worse user experience. On Hyperliquid, a bot or market maker reading stale state through a slow endpoint carries quoting risk and, in a fast market, liquidation risk. A team running infrastructure in Asia needs the JP column, not the global average, to size that risk.

Hyperliquid is also a younger network than Ethereum, with a provider ecosystem that is still changing, so rankings here can move faster between editions.

2. Methodology and scoring

2.1 Monitoring infrastructure

A Python service running on Vercel serverless functions sends RPC requests to each monitored provider every 1–3 minutes from three regions and records each request’s response time and outcome. The results feed a public Grafana dashboard, which also powers Chainstack Compare. Regions are labeled by country code: DE, US, and JP for Hyperliquid (the other chains in this series use SG instead of JP). Because probes originate from cloud regions, the benchmark measures latency between each provider and those regions, not the latency an end user on a home or mobile connection would see.

2.2 What is requested and what counts as a failure

All requests use the latest block, except methods marked with an hourglass (⌛) on the dashboard. These “archive” methods query historical blocks one to two days old, which exercises a provider’s historical-state path rather than its tip-of-chain path. A response that takes longer than 55 seconds is treated as a failure, not as a very slow success, and is excluded from the latency charts. Per-method breakdowns are available in Grafana; this report uses the summary view.

2.3 Plan monitored

Unless a different plan is specified, each provider is monitored on its first paid RPC plan, named Growth as a rule. The results describe each provider’s entry paid tier. Dedicated, enterprise, and other higher tiers are not covered, and rate limits or routing that differ by plan may affect both latency and success rate.

2.4 Scoring formula

The dashboard ranks providers on speed (response time) and reliability (success rate). Lower is better.

Score = 1 / ((1 / ResponseTime) × (SuccessRate³))      = ResponseTime / SuccessRate³

The score is built in four steps:

1. Latency term. For each region, take each method’s p95 and combine them as an arithmetic mean with equal weight per method. eth_subscribe is excluded from this average because its latency reflects chain block cadence, not provider speed.
2. Success-rate term. For each region, compute the success rate using sample counts as weights. eth_subscribe still counts toward this term.
3. Per-region score. Divide the latency term by the success rate cubed. Response time is in seconds, so a latency term of 0.019 means 19 ms.
4. Final score. Take the arithmetic mean of the regional scores. Every region carries equal weight, so one slow region cannot be hidden by fast ones.

2.5 How much the success-rate cube matters

Cubing the success rate makes small reliability drops visible, but at the availability levels measured on Hyperliquid the effect is small.

Success rate	Score multiplier
100.00%	1.000×
99.90%	1.003×
99.50%	1.015×
99.00%	1.031×
97.00%	1.096×
95.00%	1.166×

The lowest availability on Hyperliquid is Chainstack’s 99.74%, a multiplier of about 1.008×. Chainstack’s score would be roughly 0.8% lower at 100.00%, nowhere near enough to change a ranking in which second place is 1.9 times higher. Success rate becomes a dominant term only well below 99%.

2.6 Reading the dashboard columns on Hyperliquid

The P95 column is the mean of the three regional P95 values. Chainstack (18, 31, and 18 ms) averages 22.3 ms against 22 shown; Alchemy (28, 43, 51) averages 40.7 against 40; Quicknode (19, 81, 128) averages 76.0 against 76; dRPC (76, 127, 183) averages 128.7 against 129.

The score is not a simple function of that column. On Hyperliquid, scores run 4% to 16% below mean P95 divided by availability cubed (Chainstack: 0.019 against roughly 0.0225), because the score averages each method’s own p95 while the percentile columns summarize a different aggregation. Rank order is identical under both measures. Treat the score as the ranking authority and the percentile columns as context.

2.7 Time window, limits, and independence

The dashboard is live, refreshes every 3 minutes, and offers 24-hour and 7-day views. Every figure here comes from the 7-day view captured on Oct 8, 2026. The benchmark does not measure end-user latency, throughput under load, response correctness, cost, or tiers above the entry paid plan. Chainstack chose the formula (p95, success rate cubed, equal regional weights) and operates the probes, so a different formula could reorder close pairs.

3. Providers and regions

Four providers with public Hyperliquid RPC endpoints are monitored: Chainstack, Quicknode, Alchemy, and dRPC. Each is probed concurrently from DE, US, and JP over the same rolling 7-day window, on its first paid plan. To build on Hyperliquid with Chainstack, see the Chainstack Hyperliquid page.

4. Results

Table 1. Hyperliquid, 7-day window, Oct 8, 2026. Chainstack posts the lowest value in every percentile and regional column, and the lowest availability in the set.

Provider	Score	Availability	P50	P95	P99	DE	US	JP
Chainstack	0.019	99.74%	10ms	22ms	82ms	18ms	31ms	18ms
Alchemy	0.036	100.00%	19ms	40ms	131ms	28ms	43ms	51ms
Quicknode	0.065	99.98%	53ms	76ms	122ms	19ms	81ms	128ms
dRPC	0.124	100.00%	23ms	129ms	248ms	76ms	127ms	183ms

Hyperliquid has the widest margin between first and second place of the four chains in this series: Alchemy’s score is 1.9 times Chainstack’s. dRPC’s score is 6.5 times higher.

5. Regional variance and outliers

Chainstack wins all three regions, with the flattest profile. Its regional range is 18–31 ms (1.7×), against 28–51 ms for Alchemy (1.8×), 19–128 ms for Quicknode (6.7×), and 76–183 ms for dRPC (2.4×). Its US cell (31 ms) is its highest figure and still below every other provider’s weakest cell.

Quicknode matches Chainstack in DE and falls away elsewhere. Its 19 ms in DE is within 1 ms of Chainstack’s 18 ms, but its US (81 ms) and JP (128 ms) cells are 2.6 and 7.1 times Chainstack’s.

JP is the weakest region for all three competitors. Alchemy (51 ms), Quicknode (128 ms), and dRPC (183 ms) each post their highest P95 in JP, and JP is where their gap to Chainstack (18 ms) is widest: 2.8, 7.1, and 10.2 times. Chainstack does not follow that pattern.

Availability is the one place Chainstack does not lead. Alchemy and dRPC record 100.00% and Quicknode 99.98%, against Chainstack’s 99.74%. In practice the latency gap dominates the score, but a workload that retries failed requests at a cost should look at this column.

Table 2. Lowest P95 by region on Hyperliquid.

Region	Lowest P95
DE	Chainstack (18 ms)
US	Chainstack (31 ms)
JP	Chainstack (18 ms)

6. Changes since September

The September 2026 edition of this report covered the same four providers on Hyperliquid. Table 3 compares its figures with this month’s.

Table 3. Hyperliquid, September snapshot (late Sep 2026) to October snapshot (Oct 8, 2026). Lower is better.

Provider	Score	P95 (global)	Availability	Worst region P95
Chainstack	0.020 → 0.019	23 → 22 ms	100.00% → 99.74%	US 31 → US 31 ms
Alchemy	0.053 → 0.036	56 → 40 ms	99.99% → 100.00%	US 81 → JP 51 ms
Quicknode	0.066 → 0.065	76 → 76 ms	99.69% → 99.98%	JP 124 → JP 128 ms
dRPC	0.074 → 0.124	112 → 129 ms	99.99% → 100.00%	JP 203 → JP 183 ms

Alchemy improved the most, from 0.053 to 0.036, with its worst cell falling from 81 ms to 51 ms. dRPC got worse, from 0.074 to 0.124, with DE rising from 59 ms to 76 ms and US from 74 ms to 127 ms.

Quicknode’s JP weakness persisted (124 ms to 128 ms) while its availability recovered from 99.69% to 99.98%. Two consecutive windows do not prove a structural cause, but they make a one-off less likely.

Chainstack’s availability fell from 100.00% to 99.74% while its latency edged down. Each snapshot is one 7-day window, so this shows two points in time, not a trend; the next edition will show whether it recovers.

7. Interpretation notes and known confounders

Entry paid plan only. Higher tiers, including dedicated infrastructure placed near a weak region, could change a provider’s regional profile and are not tested.

Probes are synthetic and regional. Requests come from serverless functions in three cloud regions. A team whose users sit elsewhere should treat the nearest region as a proxy and verify with its own probes.

Hyperliquid is a young, fast-moving chain. Its provider ecosystem is less mature than Ethereum’s. Expect rankings and regional patterns to shift more between editions than on older chains.

Method mix is summarized, not shown. Headline numbers average across methods with equal weights. Methods differ widely in cost, so a workload concentrated in one heavy method, such as order-book or fill-status queries, may rank providers differently. Per-method values are in Grafana.

Single window. Both the October figures and the September comparison rest on a single 7-day window each.

8. Conclusion

On Hyperliquid, Chainstack posts the lowest score in this report series and the lowest P95 in every region, with a profile that stays between 18 ms and 31 ms across DE, US, and JP. Its 99.74% availability is the one reliability signal worth watching: the formula barely penalizes it, but it is lower than every other provider’s and lower than Chainstack’s own September figure. Quicknode matches Chainstack in DE but is much slower in JP, and dRPC trails in every region. Teams choosing an RPC provider for Hyperliquid should read the column for the region where their infrastructure runs, and weigh availability alongside latency if failed requests are costly.

9. Frequently asked questions

Which RPC provider has the lowest latency on Hyperliquid?

Chainstack, on the 7-day window ending Oct 8, 2026. It scores 0.019 with a global P95 of 22 ms, against 40 ms for Alchemy, 76 ms for Quicknode, and 129 ms for dRPC.

Which provider is fastest in Japan (JP) on Hyperliquid?

Chainstack, with a JP P95 of 18 ms, against 51 ms for Alchemy, 128 ms for Quicknode, and 183 ms for dRPC.

How much does Chainstack’s 99.74% availability affect its Hyperliquid score?

About 0.8%. Cubing 99.74% gives a score multiplier of roughly 1.008, which is far smaller than the gap to second place (Section 2.5).

Appendix A: measurement parameters

Parameter	Value
Chain	Hyperliquid
Providers	Chainstack, Quicknode, Alchemy, dRPC
Plan monitored	First paid RPC plan per provider (Growth as a rule)
Regions	DE, US, JP
Probe infrastructure	Python service on Vercel serverless functions
Probe cadence	Every 1–3 minutes per region
Request target	Latest block; archive methods (⌛) query blocks 1–2 days old
Failure threshold	Responses over 55 seconds count as failures
Latency term	Mean of per-method p95, equal method weights, eth_subscribe excluded
Success-rate term	Sample-count weighted, eth_subscribe included
Score formula	ResponseTime / SuccessRate³ per region, then arithmetic mean across regions
Time window	Rolling 7 days; dashboard refreshes every 3 minutes
Snapshot date	Oct 8, 2026
Source	Chainstack Compare, public Grafana dashboard
Collection code	compare-dashboard-functions