Robinhood Chain Transaction Submission Benchmark: Four-Way Race

On October 26, 2026, we ran two 100-round transaction-submission races on Robinhood Mainnet from Ohio-2b. The four paths under test were BlockRazor, bloXroute, Eira Nodes, and Node1.

BlockRazor won 56 of 100 rounds in the four-way same-nonce race. In the distinct-nonce onchain-position test, BlockRazor took the earliest position among all four transactions in 61 of 100 rounds. In pairwise comparisons derived from the distinct-nonce test, BlockRazor finished ahead of bloXroute in 100/100 comparable rounds, ahead of Eira Nodes in 71/99, and ahead of Node1 in 82/100.

Key results

• Same-nonce four-way race: BlockRazor won 56/100 rounds, the highest share among the four paths.
• Distinct-nonce full-field ordering: BlockRazor took the earliest onchain position in 61/100 rounds.
• BlockRazor vs bloXroute: BlockRazor finished ahead in 100/100 comparable samples.
• BlockRazor vs Eira Nodes: BlockRazor finished ahead in 71/99 comparable samples.
• BlockRazor vs Node1: BlockRazor finished ahead in 82/100 comparable samples.

Benchmark setup: four paths from the same Ohio-2b test machine

Both tests ran on Robinhood Mainnet, Chain ID 4663, from the same Ohio-2b test machine. Each test contained 100 rounds with a five-second interval between rounds.

The same test process triggered all four requests in each round. The raw logs show a median launch spread of approximately 90 μs and a P90 spread of 163 μs in the same-nonce test. In the distinct-nonce test, the corresponding values were approximately 89 μs and 140 μs. The path launched first was also distributed across all four services rather than being fixed to BlockRazor.

Transaction type, fee conditions, and execution complexity were matched within each round. Final results were determined from onchain receipts. A transaction in an earlier block ranked first; when transactions landed in the same block, the lower transactionIndex ranked first.

Result 1: BlockRazor won 56% of the four-way same-nonce races

The same-nonce test models multiple submission paths competing for the same executable opportunity. In each round, the four transactions used the same sender and nonce. Because that nonce can be consumed only once, at most one of the competing transactions can be included. The transaction that lands identifies the submission path that first entered valid Sequencer ordering for that round.

To identify the four paths onchain, the transactions used adjacent gas limits from 30000 to 30003. Fee parameters and execution content remained matched, and actual gas usage was below all four limits.

All 100 rounds produced an onchain winner. BlockRazor won 56 rounds, more than the other three paths combined. Eira Nodes and Node1 won 28 and 16 rounds respectively. No bloXroute same-nonce winner was observed in this sample.

The 56% figure is a four-way win share, not a 56% pairwise win rate against each provider. It answers a specific question: when all four paths compete for one executable nonce at the same time, which path most often enters valid ordering first?

Result 2: BlockRazor took the earliest onchain position in 61% of rounds

A same-nonce race leaves only one transaction onchain, so it cannot show where the other three transactions would have landed. The distinct-nonce test used independent funded accounts and nonces for the four paths, allowing all four transactions to execute. Its purpose is to compare the final onchain positions obtained by each route when every transaction can land.

Each round was classified first by block height. If multiple transactions landed in the same block, the lower transactionIndex was ranked earlier. This produced one full-field winner for each round.

BlockRazor took the earliest onchain position among the four transactions in 61 rounds, more than the other three paths combined. BlockRazor, Node1, and bloXroute obtained receipts in all 100 rounds. Eira Nodes obtained 99 receipts.

To show the concrete ordering gap within the same block, we also calculated competitor transactionIndex − BlockRazor transactionIndex. A positive value means BlockRazor received the lower index and earlier onchain position; a negative value means the competitor was earlier. The mean and percentiles below include only pairs that landed in the same block. Rounds in which BlockRazor landed in an earlier block are reported separately and are not mixed into the index-difference distribution.

Against bloXroute, BlockRazor landed in an earlier block in nine rounds and received the lower index in all 91 remaining same-block samples, with a median lead of three positions. The Eira Nodes and Node1 same-block samples include rounds won by either path, so their rows use the full signed difference distribution; the mean and P50 nevertheless remained positive in both comparisons.

Head-to-head: BlockRazor's onchain position against each path

The distinct-nonce results also support pairwise comparisons between BlockRazor and each other submission path. BlockRazor was classified as ahead when it landed in an earlier block or, within the same block, received a lower transactionIndex.

BlockRazor vs bloXroute: ahead in 100/100 onchain comparisons

BlockRazor obtained the earlier onchain position in all 100 comparable rounds: it landed in an earlier block in nine rounds and received a lower transactionIndex in all 91 same-block rounds. The exact index differences are reported in the Result 2 table above.

BlockRazor vs Eira Nodes: ahead in 71/99 comparisons

BlockRazor and Eira Nodes had 99 comparable rounds. BlockRazor finished ahead in 71, while Eira Nodes finished ahead in 28. BlockRazor landed in an earlier block once; the index distribution for the other 98 rounds appears in Result 2.

BlockRazor vs Node1: ahead in 82/100 comparisons

All 100 BlockRazor and Node1 rounds were comparable. BlockRazor finished ahead in 82 and Node1 in 18. BlockRazor landed in an earlier block once; the index distribution for the other 99 rounds appears in Result 2.

Why the submission path affects ordering on Robinhood Chain

Robinhood Chain documentation states that the network uses first-come, first-served sequencing. Ordering is determined by arrival time at the Sequencer, and a later transaction cannot simply pay a higher fee to bypass an earlier one.

For latency-sensitive systems, the submission path can therefore affect two directly observable outcomes: whether a transaction enters an earlier block and, when competing transactions enter the same block, whether it receives a lower Transaction Index. That is why this benchmark uses both test designs. Same-nonce races measure direct competition for one executable opportunity; distinct-nonce races verify the final positions when every transaction can land.

What the results mean for trading systems

For sniping, arbitrage, liquidations, and other state-dependent strategies, reaching the Sequencer earlier can improve the probability that the intended execution conditions still exist. For searchers and quantitative systems, a lower-latency submission path preserves more of the reaction window between receiving a signal, completing computation, and reaching ordering.

For wallets, DEXs, and orderflow applications, an optimized submission path can improve the probability of an earlier block or better index without changing the end user's workflow.

BlockRazor optimizes the path used to deliver a signed transaction to the Robinhood Chain Sequencer. A lower-latency path can improve ordering probability, but it does not guarantee a specific block, a fixed Transaction Index, transaction success, or strategy profitability. Final outcomes still depend on transaction validity, network conditions, competing flow, and Sequencer ordering.

Sequencer Feed plus Transaction Sending: from signal to submission

The reaction path for a latency-sensitive trading system typically looks like this:

Receive block → update state → evaluate strategy → build transaction → submit transaction → enter Sequencer ordering

BlockRazor Robinhood Chain Sequencer Feed optimizes the receive side by helping systems obtain new blocks earlier. Transaction Sending optimizes the send side by routing signed transactions toward Robinhood Chain through a low-latency path. The services can be used independently or combined into an end-to-end path from onchain signal to transaction submission.

Conclusion: run the same race from your production environment

In the October 26, 2026 Ohio-2b benchmark, BlockRazor won 56/100 rounds in the four-way same-nonce race and took the earliest full-field position in 61/100 distinct-nonce rounds. Pairwise onchain comparisons placed BlockRazor ahead of bloXroute, Eira Nodes, and Node1 in 100/100, 71/99, and 82/100 comparable rounds respectively.

Teams whose execution depends on ordering can run the same A/B test from their production region: trigger matched transactions across multiple paths, record receipts, block heights, and transactionIndex, and repeat the measurement across different time windows.

BlockRazor Robinhood Chain Transaction Sending supports the standard eth_sendRawTransaction method. Read the integration documentation, or contact BlockRazor on Discord to benchmark the service from your own trading environment.

Frequently asked questions

What do the same-nonce and distinct-nonce tests measure?

The same-nonce test makes four transactions compete for one executable nonce, so only one can land and identify the path that entered valid ordering first. The distinct-nonce test allows all four transactions to execute, then compares their block heights and, within the same block, their transactionIndex values.

How was the earlier onchain position determined?

The benchmark compared block height first, with a transaction in an earlier block ranked ahead. When transactions landed in the same block, the lower transactionIndex ranked earlier. Cross-block outcomes were kept separate from the mean and percentile calculations for same-block index differences.

Why were only 99 BlockRazor and Eira Nodes rounds comparable?

The distinct-nonce test ran for 100 rounds, but one Eira Nodes transaction did not obtain an onchain receipt. That round could not support a pairwise onchain-position comparison, so the BlockRazor versus Eira Nodes head-to-head result uses the remaining 99 comparable samples.

Do these results guarantee the same performance in every region and time window?

No. The results come from the listed endpoints and an Ohio-2b test machine on October 26, 2026. Network routing, endpoint deployment, load, and competing traffic can change the outcome. Teams should repeat the same matched-transaction test from their own production region.