Open benchmarks.
All runs linked.
gRPC streaming latency. Transaction landing times. Full distribution — P50, P95, P99. Every test has a date, a node, a run count, and a public link.
First-look in 99.97%
of slots vs Yellowstone.
Aperture is a shred-native gRPC feed. We ran 20,000 transactions head-to-head against Yellowstone and measured which feed saw each transaction first — and by how much.
First-look detection rate
Aperture advantage over Yellowstone — latency distribution
Overall latency difference across 20,000 slots: Shredstream is only 0.1ms faster on average, 0.4ms at P95, 2.1ms at the tail. The gap is this small because Aperture runs server-side filters and reduced bandwidth — it does more work on the same latency budget.
Routes to the fastest
provider on every run.
Beam scores providers in real time and routes each transaction to the top performer. P90 is weighted 4× in the scoring — tail latency is where landing fails under load. Available on all paid plans (extra fees via partners' network).
| Provider | Avg landed | P90 landed | Performance score | Avg ack |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| beam-astralane | 330ms | 589ms | 97.42% | 53ms |
| rpcfast-rpc (standard) | 457ms | 1,065ms | 82.20% | 28ms |
Beam vs standard RPC — landing latency
Public methodology.
No exceptions.
Every number includes the test date, node spec, run count, and scoring formula. Runs are linked — check them yourself.
Test Environment
- Date May 19, 2026
- Location Frankfurt, Germany
- Node Latitude.sh — f4.metal.small
- gRPC runs 20,000 tx per feed
- Beam scoring 10 runs per provider
- Beam vs RPC 20 runs per provider
Beam Scoring Formula
- landed_ms 0.2 × avg + 0.8 × P90 (P90 weighted 4×)
- landed_slots 0.2 × avg + 0.8 × P90
- landed_idx 0.5 × avg + 0.5 × P90
- same_slot higher is better (0–100)
- success_ratio higher is better (0–100)
- Final score unweighted average of all five
Run: Aperture vs Shredstream ↗
Test it yourself.
Aperture gRPC and Beam routing are available on paid plans. Start free — upgrade when you need the edge.
