Performance and Benchmarking

gRPC Performance

Check out our Grafana dashboard with metrics here.

Geolocation: Currently, we are present in Frankfurt, Equinix FR13 data center.

For the most efficient performance and lowest latency, we recommend deploying your app in the same region data center or close. Recommended providers: Cherry Servers, Teraswitch, Latitude, AWS, GCP.

---

Benchmarking Against Competitors

Use GeyserBench to compare multiple Solana gRPC endpoints simultaneously and measure their speed and reliability in detecting transactions.

Compare latency percentile profiles and reliability for each RPC endpoint.

Example: RPC Fast vs. Triton (May 13, 2026)

Note: The competitor's endpoint was masked to avoid exposing the client's data.

---

Benchmarking RPC Fast gRPC Services

Yellowstone vs Aperture

Benchmark overview (May 19, 2026)

┌─────────────┬─────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬──────────┬────────┬──────────┐
│ Endpoint    ┆ First % ┆ P50 ms ┆ P95 ms ┆ P99 ms ┆ Valid Tx ┆ Firsts ┆ Backfill │
╞═════════════╪═════════╪════════╪════════╪════════╪══════════╪════════╪══════════╡
│ aperture    ┆ 99.97   ┆ 0.00   ┆ 0.00   ┆ 0.00   ┆ 20000    ┆ 19994  ┆ 0        │
├╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┤
│ yellowstone ┆ 0.03    ┆ 10.77  ┆ 35.56  ┆ 50.72  ┆ 20000    ┆ 6      ┆ 0        │
└─────────────┴─────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴──────────┴────────┴──────────┘

Aperture vs. Shredstream

Benchmark overview (May 19, 2026)

Note: Shredstream includes shreds from our partners + Jito shreds.

┌─────────────┬─────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬──────────┬────────┬──────────┐
│ Endpoint    ┆ First % ┆ P50 ms ┆ P95 ms ┆ P99 ms ┆ Valid Tx ┆ Firsts ┆ Backfill │
╞═════════════╪═════════╪════════╪════════╪════════╪══════════╪════════╪══════════╡
│ shredstream ┆ 95.59   ┆ 0.00   ┆ 0.00   ┆ 0.32   ┆ 20000    ┆ 19118  ┆ 0        │
├╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌┤
│ aperture    ┆ 4.41    ┆ 0.10   ┆ 0.41   ┆ 2.12   ┆ 20000    ┆ 882    ┆ 0        │
└─────────────┴─────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴──────────┴────────┴──────────┘

Review: Aperture is faster than Yellowstone by 10.7ms on average, by 35.5ms in the top 5% of the results, and by 50.7ms in 1% of the results.

ShredStream is only 0.1ms faster than Aperture on average, 0.4ms in the top 5% of the results, and 2.1ms in 1% of the results.

This signals about strong performance of the Aperture gRPC, considering that Aperture supports server-side filters and offers reduced bandwidth usage, compared to Shredstream.

Note: Tests were run on Latitude.sh in Frankfurt (f4.metal.small).

---

Transaction Landing Performance: Beam

Benchmark code on Github. Create the type of transaction you need and check real-world performance.

Beam Providers Performance Scoring

We evaluate each provider across five key performance metrics:

• Landing latency (milliseconds)

• Landing latency (slots)

• Transaction position within the block

• Same-slot landing rate

• Overall success rate

Each metric is normalized on a 0–100 scale relative to the best-performing provider in the comparison set.

For latency-related metrics, p90 performance is weighted 4× more heavily than average performance, prioritizing consistency under load and minimizing tail latency.

Block position uses equal weighting between average and p90 values.

The final performance score is calculated as the unweighted average of all five metric scores.

Five buckets:

landed_ms = 0.2 × avg_score(submit_to_landed_grpc_ms)
+ 0.8 × p90_score(submit_to_landed_grpc_ms)

landed_slots = 0.2 × avg_score(submit_to_landed_slots)
+ 0.8 × p90_score(submit_to_landed_slots)

landed_idx = 0.5 × avg_score(landed_index_in_block)
+ 0.5 × p90_score(landed_index_in_block)

same_slot = higher_is_better_score(same_slot_landed_count)

success_ratio = higher_is_better_score(landed_runs / total_runs)

Final score:

performance_rate_pct = (landed_ms + landed_slots + landed_idx + same_slot + success_ratio) / 5

---

Beam Providers Comparison

• Generated: 2026-05-19T15:16:33.756079549+00:00

• Runs per provider: 10

• Selected providers: beam-astralane, beam-bloxroute, beam-falcon

Provider	Avg Ack ms	P90 Ack ms	Avg Landed ms	P90 Landed ms	Avg Block ms	P90 Block ms	Avg Landed slots	P90 Landed slots	Avg Idx-in-Block	P90 Idx-in-Block	Avg Priority Fee	Max Slots	Min Slots	Same-slot landed	Landed runs	Block seen	Total runs	Success ratio %	Performance rate %
beam-astralane	51.793	54.891	231.625	443.929	393.336	453.750	0.700	1.000	526.30	773.00	10000.000	1	0	3	10	10	10	100.00	99.78
beam-bloxroute	53.163	54.728	232.784	443.948	391.469	453.708	0.700	1.000	655.50	829.00	10000.000	1	0	3	10	10	10	100.00	99.66
beam-falcon	53.888	54.612	229.601	443.934	390.611	453.725	0.700	1.000	658.30	830.00	10000.000	1	0	3	10	10	10	100.00	100.00

Note: The benchmark is optimized for same-slot landing. We subscribe to Aperture gRPC to detect new slot signals and trigger transaction submission immediately as a new slot begins. Transaction landing confirmation is determined through consensus between Aperture and Yellowstone data sources.

Aperture is not required for performance testing — unless explicitly specified, Yellowstone gRPC is used by default.

---

Beam vs RPC Comparison

• Generated: 2026-05-19T15:22:23.427708898+00:00

• Runs per provider: 20

• Selected providers: beam-astralane, rpcfast-rpc

Provider	Avg Ack ms	P90 Ack ms	Avg Landed ms	P90 Landed ms	Avg Block ms	P90 Block ms	Avg Landed slots	P90 Landed slots	Avg Idx-in-Block	P90 Idx-in-Block	Avg Priority Fee	Max Slots	Min Slots	Same-slot landed	Landed runs	Block seen	Total runs	Success ratio %	Performance rate %
beam-astralane	52.586	55.406	330.392	589.025	345.213	589.025	0.400	1.000	704.45	1092.00	10000.000	1	0	12	20	20	20	100.00	97.42
rpcfast-rpc	27.570	38.891	457.492	1065.526	503.728	1065.526	0.650	2.000	574.65	1012.00	10000.000	4	0	12	20	20	20	100.00	82.20

---

RPC Fast Endpoint Checker

Quick health checker for your Solana endpoint – works both on mainnet and devnet:

https://check.rpcfast.com/